Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Ember Days

fish eaters : Ember Days
http://www.fisheaters.com/emberdays.html

Freedom if he claims

American Creation : Jefferson on Traveling with Your Slaves Outside America
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2015/02/jefferson-on-traveling-with-your-slaves.html


Quoting Jefferson's letter from link:

I have made enquiries on the subject of the negro boy you have brought, and find that the laws of France give him freedom if he claims it, and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law. Nevertheless I have known an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession. I think it will be easier in your case to pursue the same plan, as the boy is so young that it is not probable he will think of claiming freedom.


Obviously, we are talking about France - not about its then colonies in Haiti or Louisiana. The French law for France dates from the Christian Queen, indeed a Saint of the Catholic Church, Bathilde. Actually it is from before France, Germany, Savoy, Benelux etc. split up - so it was valid in these other European countries as well. St Bathilde was a Merovingian Queen. Merovingian and early Carlovingian Francia is larger than just France.

The laws for the colonies like Haiti and Louisiana were by contrast from the era between Renaissance and Enlightenment, between acquisition of colony and French Revolution.

Germany, meaning back then Holy Roman Empire, and including populations not speaking German, of which Prussia and Austria and Bavaria and Bohemia were four states, and of which the Austrian Archduke and Bohemian King was regularly also Emperor, obviously also had the laws of Queen St Bathilde.

But unlike France in the later Capetingian sense, the Germanies, the Holy Roman Empire, had not acquired colonies overseas. And therefore they had no colonial laws like those corresponding to the French legislation of Haiti or of Louisiana.

Speaking of the latter - during a period of La Régence (1715-1723) or of Louis XV's personal rule (1723 - 1774, not sure now which of the two) laws got worse for blacks in Louisiana. Before, a free black man had had the right to carry a gun, like a free white man. Afterwards it got better again, and I think USA Louisiana and CSA Louisiana was one of the slave states, perhaps the only one, where a free black man could carry a gun, precisely as a free white. I think this amelioration already happened before the French Revolution and before France sold Louisiana (or before Napoleon illegally occupying royal functions in France sold Louisiana) to the United States.

Early Middle Ages - a time when slaves get freed in the heartland of Western Europe. Early Modern Times - a time when Europe's West Coast countries acquire colonies - and slaves.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
day after
St Mathias Apostle
25-II-2015

And recent times : when Mauritania still retains its slaves.

AFK Insider : 12 African Countries With The Most Slavery : 1. Mauritania – 4% (Worst in the world for modern-day slavery)
By Keren Mikva AFKI Original Published: January 29, 2015, 8:15 am
http://afkinsider.com/85740/african-countries-with-the-most-slavery-prevalence/13/

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

Saving Chase

Obviously his mother is not into Judaism:

#savingchase
https://twitter.com/hashtag/savingchase

La vraie culpabilité des colonies

1) deretour : Pourquoi l'Occident a perdu en respect devant les Musulmans, 2) Sepúlveda vs Jules Ferry, 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Esclavagisme des Noirs par Rome Chrétienne? Mais non!, 4) Aztecs today, 5) L'art de s'entendre entre colonisateurs et colonisés, 6) "Nos ancêtres les gaulois" ..., 7) L'Église et Sa Fille Ainée, 8) New blog on the kid : La vraie culpabilité des colonies, 9) deretour : en mémoire de rue d'Isly Clarté éternelle donne à cil

Comme je viens de trouver sur Médias-Presse-Infos:

Pourquoi cette vision romantique s’est-elle développée au court du XIXè siècle ? Tout simplement parce que l’Islam ne représentait plus la menace qui avait justifié la conquête des colonies. L’empire ottoman moribond et disloqué, défait partout par les troupes européennes (la prise d’Alger a marqué le début de la fin de l’Empire Ottoman), était en train de vivre ses dernières années et ne représentait plus une réelle menace. Au contraire, pour les anti-cléricaux aux commandes dans les colonies, cette religion était protégée et privilégiée comme une alliée contre la religion catholique honnie. Les populations autochtones ont été éduquées dans des écoles publiques en haine du catholicisme. Il faut bien garder cela à l’esprit pour comprendre aussi les conséquences terribles de la décolonisation aujourd’hui.


Encore une fois:

Au contraire, pour les anti-cléricaux aux commandes dans les colonies, cette religion était protégée et privilégiée comme une alliée contre la religion catholique honnie.

En d'autres mots, oui, j'ai eu raison de considérer que les Pieds-Noirs ont pu subir, dès par leurs chefs sur place, une certaine arabisation et islamisation des valeurs. J'aurais voulu dire "lente et imperceptible", mais ça c'est affirmer plus que je sais.

Notons, certains ont résisté. Si chez eux, souvent des Catholiques assez conservateurs, ça a eu lieu, ça a pu être malgré eux. D'autres sont connus comme par exemple "pieds-rouges". Ce n'était pas que pour le mal, une générosité a pu être fortifiée grâce à cela. Mais aussi un peu du rigorisme hiérarchique, moins bien.

Et le qui-vive pour ne pas s'islamiser a conduits certains à s'identifier trop avec le progrès indéniable mais qui était parfois accompagné de torts aux propriétaires indigènes (notamment contre la propriété collective) et que nous voyons aujourd'hui souvent lié à des malfaits à notre milieu, tel l'uranium et le césium que ce soit depuis Tchernobyl ou depuis une fuite en Vaucluse.

Il y a deux obstacles différents à l'appréciation du Moyen Âge : l'obstacle de gauche dont parle l'article ...

Nous Catholiques et Français, soyons fiers des Croisades! L’un de nos plus beaux titres de gloire!
in Culture, Histoire / by Emilie Defresne / on 14 décembre 2014 at 15 h 49 min /
http://www.medias-presse.info/nous-catholiques-et-francais-soyons-fiers-des-croisades/20418


... et l'obstacle "de droite," la fierté de toute la colonisation avec son progrès, comme pendant à cette honte illégitime du Moyen Âge.

L'Autriche n'a pas colonisé en Afrique. On n'a pas eu tellement des peuples étrangères "à nous" (je suis Suédois mais je me sens parfois comme Autrichien de cœur) sous "notre" administration. On n'a pas eu une Troisième République non plus. "Nos" anticléricaux sont devenus impopulaires à la Révolution Française, à la décapitation de Marie Antoinette. Si Joseph II du Saint-Empire était anticlérical, ce n'était plus le cas pour François d'Autriche. On a gardé sa fierté du Moyen Âge - y compris des aspects étrangers aux mémoires du Moyen Âge des autres. Par exemple, l'impression que Richard Cœur-de-Lion avait mérité en partie sa captivité "chez nous" par ses mauvaises manières publiques envers Léopold V d'Autriche à la prise de St. Jean d'Acre. Néanmoins, le Pape n'a pas été d'accord, le Duc a dû le libérer pour ne pas souffrir l'excommunication. Donc, si on n'a pas eu honte du progrès, on n'y a pas été trop attaché pour le critiquer non plus.

Oui, la vraie culpabilité de vos colonies a été de ne pas y aller comme des bons Catholiques avant tout. Ceci s'est accentué avec Jules Ferry, bien-sûr.*

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Mathias Apôtre
24-II-2015

* Au début, c'était autre chose.

Monday, 23 February 2015

Vox Cantoris blogged about « Father » Rosica.

1) Vox Cantoris blogged about « Father » Rosica., 2) Update Vox Cantoris / "Father" Rosica

Incriminated material:

Vox Cantoris : label : Rosicanisms
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/search/label/Rosicanisms


Legal reaction:

ChurchMilitantTv : copy of legal letter from « Father » Rosica's attourneys
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/documents/spec-2015-02-19.pdf


Explanation of story:

Vox Cantoris : YOUR BLOGGER VOX CANTORIS IS THREATENED WITH A LAWSUIT BY VATICAN OFFICIAL AND PAPAL ADVISER - FATHER THOMAS ROSICA, CSB
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/02/this-blogger-being-threatened-with.html


Let's take another story. CMI refuted Reasons to Believe :

CMI : Ethiopian ‘earliest humans’ find
A severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross and similar ‘progressive creationist’ compromise views.
by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, CMI-Australia : 12 June 2003
http://creation.com/ethiopian-earliest-humans-find


Which led to a correspondence shown here:

CMI :‘Factual errors and distortions’ about early humans?
4 July 2003
updated 12 July 2003
http://creation.com/factual-errors-and-distortions-about-early-humans


Has Fuz Rana behaved better or worse than « Father » Rosica?

A quote from the latter’s legal response: “various entries on your blog that are false, defamatory, or both” … Now, a public servant (and the Church is a Public space, not a private club) has to try to stand statements that are defamatory, unless they are also false.

The statements might be false, if they logically do not follow as real conclusions of the behaviour of « Father » Rosica that Vox Cantoris was commenting on. But as long as the conclusions are somewhat closish to what was commented on and as long as Vox Cantoris cited no false facts to comment on, it would seem to be within the legal rights of public debate.

Now, « Father » Rosica had two other options (apart from ignoring). Take the way of Fuz Rana with CMI (and risk exposing himself with own words quotable on blog) or consider the attack on himself as an attack (objectively if not intention) on the Church and therefore something he could and even should denounce from the chancel. He could even have levelled canonic action against Vox Cantoris blogger – since both acknowledge same « Pope Francis» they have « superiors » in common. I am not sure Pope Michael would not have asked such a road of action even from those acknowledging him in a similar case.

I consider the action of « Father » Rosica extremely cowardly and unbecoming to a civilised discourse on the internet.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St Matthias
23-II-2015

St Matthias Apostle, update:

Rosica seems to have said the following:

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."


Source:

More Pieces of the Puzzle- Fr. Rosica
De Omnibus Dubitandum Est. ...the existential consequences of assuming
http://marklambert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/more-pieces-of-puzzle-fr-rosica.html


Hardly looks as if Vox Cantoris was wrong, does it?/HGL

Thursday, 19 February 2015

A Much Viewed Blog of mine:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
Pageviews last month 2,415
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com


A long continued and updated post on it:

... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material
18 Jan 2015 [views last month:] 20
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/01/on-arguing-biblical-inerrancy-from.html


An even more viewed one:

... on Geocentrism with God and Angelic Movers, versus New Age, versus Newton
25 Jul 2013 [views last month:] 154
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-geocentrism-with-god-and-angelic.html


An even more viewed blog:

HGL's F.B. writings
Pageviews last month 4,734
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com


And its most viewed post last month:

I am not sure you know Artur Sebastian Rosman
25 Jul 2014 [views last month:] 388
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/07/i-am-not-sure-you-know-artur-sebastian.html

Management, esclavage, état servil …

Mercredi le 11 février – qui a lu N° 1637 de DirectMatin? Moi, je viens de relire. Sur la page 3, il y a un article entitré Les bons esclaves choyés – et on se demande ce que se passait avec les mauvais esclaves.

Dans l’article on cite Jerry Toner qui à Cambridge vient de publier un ouvrage (le titre n’en est pas donné dans l’article) selon lequel la façon dont les Romains traitaient leurs esclaves pourrait servir de modèle de management. Comme étudiant surtout des langues classiques (quoique sans diplôme finale, ni licenciat, ni baccalauréat, ni doctorat, juste des thèses intermédiaires, un sur Opus de Conscribendis Epistolis par Érasme, et un petit compilat sur l’histoire de la Lituanie jusqu’à l’union avec la Pologne), je sais quelque chose sur cette idéologie esclavagiste, formulée par Caton et Columelle entre autres (surtout eux, il me semble – d’ailleurs ils ont dans les mêmes ouvrages donné d’autres conseilles aussi, il s’agit des livres sur l’agriculture). Oui, les bons esclaves, et ça implique d’abord qu’ils étaient en position de se faire remarquer comme bons, par exemple pas esclaves des champs mais esclaves de maison, ils étaient peut être exactement choyés – mais pas libres. Ceux qui n’étaient pas bons, ceux qui n’étaient pas en position de se faire remarquer comme tels, ils étaient nettement moins choyés.

Je crois que la rédaction a fait un bon choix de montrer une image de film avec un esclave des navires (entre ses « potes ») – une punition que Louis XIV trouvait bon pour des criminels comme la Religion Prétendument Réformée et ses adhérents, mais pas pour des hommes libres et innocents, ni pour les serfs qu’il y avait encore un peu jusqu’à la Révolution, ni pour des valets qui n’étaient pas bons. Je crois que le Grand Siècle avait davantage d’humanité que l’Empire Romain, surtout dans l’époque païenne (quand Columelle, Caton et leurs homologues n’étaient pas encore tempérés, peut-être même pas de Cicéron encore, et certes pas par le Christianisme).

Jerry Toner argumente que les esclaves étaient des ressources humaines, des investissements, dont la mauvaise traitance amoindrissait la valeur du patrimoine … les patrimoines étaient d’ailleurs plus souvent le cas, que les entreprises non agricoles. En plus, davantage on a de ressources, moins chacune vaut en comparaison avec les autres ensemble. Mais avec certaines ressources, on peut être cynique – par exemple si la ressource est déjà mauvaise au départ ou si elle s’est empirée depuis. Surtout si on s’en peut débarrasser. En plus, comme le note Chesterton à une époque où on faisait le même cas en faveur des entrepreneurs y compris des plus grands : le fait de gâcher une valeur monétaire en traitant quelqu’un de manière mauvaise n’a pas empêché l’homme dans son état déchu de l’avoir fait, et même assez souvent quand même. Si on a du pouvoir sur les hommes et si on a d’argent – lequel entre les deux valorise-t-on davantage ? À moins d’avoir assez peu d’argent, c’est normalement le pouvoir. Comme on s’en vante presque dans les 50 Nuances de Grey … la tendance n’est pas limitée à la déviation sexuelle, consentie ou non par la victime. Il y a une déviation du pouvoir même sans directe implication sexuelle dans la victime.

Plus grandes sont les entreprises, plus elles ressemblent à d’autres choses égales, à des grandes fermes comme celles de l’Antiquité ou de l’Orient. La bonne réponse est de prôner les petites entreprises, plutôt que les grandes. Ce qui n’est pas le sens de la « loi » Macron, hélas. Plus il y a de variation véritable entre les entrepreneurs, plus il est facile d'avoir une petite entreprises, moins il y a employés parmi les non-chômeurs et plus valent les employés qu'il y a.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jeudi après Mercredi de Cendres
19-II-2015

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Standing with the Stanleys

our story
http://www.standingwiththestanleys.com/about-us.html


#standingwiththestanleys
http://www.standingwiththestanleys.com/


7 Children Kidnapped by State of Arkansas from Homeschool Family to Remain in State Custody
http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/02/16/7-children-kidnapped-by-state-of-arkansas-from-homeschool-family-to-remain-in-state-custody/


The site Medical Kindnap from which this last article also had another one:

Does the State Ever Have a “Right” to Remove Children from a Home?
http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/01/26/does-the-state-ever-have-a-right-to-remove-children-from-a-home/


But what about in other situations? Are there any situations where authorities should step in and remove children from their homes, taking them away from their parents?

Judging from comments made in social media from many commenting on some of our articles, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people in the United States today feel that in certain situations, the State has a legitimate right to step in and take children away from their families, removing them from their homes.


Fewer situations than commonly thought. Or rather, in the VERY few situations, like a dad being Satanist and having already sacrificed one or two, the first to go from home should be the criminal – and then, if children are left like orphans after removal of criminal or criminals, they should be handed to family. Other than the criminal.

There is also a piece on “due process of law” – or two:

Now, given this admittedly over-simplified summary of the criminal justice system and the protections guaranteed under the Constitution, when children are forceably removed from their home against their will or the will of their parents, based on a complaint only (such as from a physician who did not like them seeking a second opinion), is the Constitution and due process of law being followed?

Absolutely not.



There are multiple reasons why this is happening, but they are very easy to understand.

First, when the due process of the law is followed to arrest someone, hold them in confinement, bring them before a judge to press charges, and then follow the judicial process of bringing about a “speedy trial,” all of these actions are a burden to the state. In other words, it costs money.

When someone is arrested on suspicion of murder, rape, assault, robbery, and other serious crimes that are a threat to the public, those arrested enter into the criminal justice system, and have rights that are protected under our Constitution to ensure they are not victimized by the over-reach of government abuse.

Unfortunately, these alleged criminals are afforded more rights than parents are today, who have their children removed from their home or custody with no arrest and no trial.

One of the reasons why this is happening so frequently in the United States today is because once the children are taken into State custody, they become an asset to the State. What this means is that all the child’s expenses are now paid via federal funds, including medical costs via Medicaid. There are also federal funds in place for foster care. The longer a child remains in State custody, the more funds that state can collect.


[1] Woe to them that make wicked laws: and when they write, write injustice: [2] To oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people: that widows might be their prey, and that they might rob the fatherless.

Prophecy Of Isaias (Isaiah) : Chapter 10
http://drbo.org/chapter/27010.htm

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

H. H. Pope Michael on Lent 2015


I H. H. Pope Michael on Lent 2015 · II Five Years Ago · III Pray for a Pope · IV Reflection on Sedevacantism and Conclave of 1990 (quora) · V How Many are Currently Claiming Papacy or Claimed to be Popes?

Reposted with H. H. permission:

Lent 2015

"In the eyes of civilized man and savage alike, the strongest argument in favor of a doctrine is to be found in the sacrifices made by those who propagate it; the sacrifice of life, if need be, and, in a minor degree, the sacrifice of ease, country, fortune, home. The is the secret of success of our missionaries abroad, and of he most influential and venerated priests around us.” Daily Thoughts for Priests page 97.

Dear friends of Christ,

We are entering the holy season of Lent on Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2015. Lent is a good time for spiritual spring cleaning. Lent is a good time to see where we are and more important where God wants us to go. Out next step this Lent is to get out the map and plot out our course to where God wants us to go. We must be ready to say with Jesus: “Not my will, but Thy will be done.”

We are all called to be saints. It is time to ask ourselves, what would the saints before us do at these times? In difficult times, they have abandoned the comfort of their home to defend the Church. Saint Bernard left his monastery to defend Pope Innocent II against Antipope Anacletus I.

Many today look for martyrdom, but martyrdom is not a grace that is given to the lax, but those who prepare for it by a life lived for the love of Jesus Christ and in His holy service. If we must be ready to sacrifice our life if called upon, we are all called to live our life for Jesus Christ. And if this is true in all ages, how much more so today, when so few live as they ought. We have a lot to meditate on this Lent.

“For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20) Are we gathering together in Jesus Name and praying for an end to the Great Apostasy? We must remember that our spiritual strength begins with a life of serious prayer. We can preach all we want to with our lips, but if our heart is not near Jesus, our words will be worthless. It is our heart we must bring close to Jesus. In Lent we will find we have drifted away from Jesus a bit. We always do, because we live in the world and the world is full of distractions. In Lent, it is time to come home and bring our heart back close to Jesus.

Jesus gave us the example, He spent forty days and forty nights in the desert praying before His public ministry. The desert is a place separated away from the noise of the world. During Lent, we should separate from the world as much as duty will allow. We need this time to reflect on our lives and on moving forward spiritually.

We also must retire often to prayer. Jesus also retired often to prayer, during His public ministry. Scripture says He went up a mountain to pray. A mountain is also away from the noise of the world, where we ascend spiritually to life our hearts up to God.

“Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, end the Great Apostasy.” Every one of us must ask ourselves, are my actions extending the Great Apostasy or ending it? Remember Jesus did not give us a middle ground. We are either gathering with Jesus or we are scattering.

The Holy Ghost has blessed us with a knowledge of the truth. Why has He chosen us? He has chosen us, because He wants us to bring others to a knowledge and acceptance of the truth. And yes, He has chosen you, because He has led you to this email. We cannot follow the worldly, who allow others to do their work whenever possible. We are called to go and teach all nations.

And so, this Lent let us ask ourselves, what am I doing to end the Great Apostasy.

Oremus,

+Michael pp

Sunday, 15 February 2015

Vous allez peut-être croire que je flippe quand je vous le dis

Ce soir, après la visite à Georges Pompidou, deux fois j'ai affaire avec des personnes plus ou moins louches.

Cette dame de Roumanie, était-elle psychologue? Ces deux hommes de la Russie, étaient-ils de la psychiatrie de l'Institut Serbski? J'ignore. Ce que j'ignore pas, c'est que les deux m'ont demandé où j'allais dormir. Je suis heureux de leur avoir dit deux choses, qui de toute manière étaient vraies : pas dans la rue (même) et je ne savais pas encore où.

En plus, la dame m'a demandé pourquoi je ne prenais pas un boulot, tandis qu'elle savait que j'écris. Les deux hommes, l'un m'a demandé pourquoi j'avais quitté la Suède, c'était le plus âgé, et en plus de ça, il l'a fait pour me détourner de l'autre qui était voyou envers des jeunes qui m'avaient aidé avec un verre. Ensuite, ils se sont assis avec le groupe, et moi j'ai quitté. Je n'aimais pas ce jeune qui les intimidait ou essayait de le faire, et je n'aimais pas moi-même de ne pas les avoir aidé de se débarrasser de lui (si j'avais su comment, il était plus fort!) mais en plus je ne trouvais pas le vieux trop honnête non plus, affaire de m'avoir détourné des manoeuvres du jeune.

Après je me suis assis un peu à côté. C'est alors que la dame me parle et quand je viens d'expliquer en termes banales, elle avait l'air de vouloir approfondir avec une analyse de mon psyché. Après, quand elle me quitte, les deux hommes me posent la même question.

La France est-elle occupée par des Communistes venus se venger sur le monde libre pour la chute de leur pouvoir?/HGL

Saturday, 14 February 2015

It Seems Keating Wrote a Book

1) New blog on the kid : Answering Simcha Fisher, David Palm, Alec Mac Andrew and in part too Sungenis, 2) And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ..., 3) It Seems Keating Wrote a Book, 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What has that got to do with it?, 5) Were Greek Philosophers Evolutionist? And How Does Geocentrism Conflict with Observation?, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating slightly on CSL with Sungenis, 7) Creation vs. Evolution : Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan Club?

I haven't read his book, but I did read the interview he made about it. It is shorter.

Keating*:

In Wilson’s course we took the ancient observational data, worked through the calculations, and discovered that, as observations became ever more precise, the Ptolemaic and Tychonian theories failed to account for the movements of the celestial bodies. It was this failure that led Kepler to develop his three laws of planetary motion, and it was this course that sparked my interest in geocentrism.


Problem, if Tychonian theory fails to "account for the movements" even geometrically (as first observed by observations at such and such times), Kepler does TWO things to change that. One is switching to Heliocentrism. Another is to make orbits elliptical and introduce a correlation between speed and surface area of ellipse figure (equal areas of ellipse are covered in equal times).

The Catholic astronomer Riccioli integrated ALL of this, except the Heliocentric part. And when challenged with a series of Heliocentric arguments - apparently, since I have not read that passage in Riccioli, his link is THICK and in Latin, and though I read it, I read it less well than English - those from motoric difficulty for accounting for CAUSALITY of intricate Tychonian and somewhat Keplerised orbits, he answered with angelic movers. Now, that he believed these to be not only a fact but also a a good piece of theology to believe in, I have read that part.

Keating again:

Despite being at loggerheads on many theological issues, these groups have joined forces to promote their idea that the Earth is not only at the center of our planetary system but is motionless (that is, it neither moves through space nor spins on its axis) and is at the absolute center of the entire universe. In their thinking, all other bodies—planets, the Sun, the distant stars, galaxies—revolve around the Earth each 24 hours.


OK. This Riccioli, like Tycho, thought too.

Note, as we are talking about absolute centre of the universe, Keating may be earlier in the text somewhat off, and he is certainly not clear to others, when defining Geocentrism thus:

Just as heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is the center of our planetary system, so geocentrism is the theory that the Earth is the center.


That sounds a bit, not as if geocentrism means earth is non-moving centre of the universe, but rather as if Earth is relative centre of solar system. With an added option of soilar system, having Earth in its centre, wandering slowly (relatively speaking, but quicker in absolute speed) through the galaxy and through the galaxies.

No. Rather, the Ptolemaic position is that Earth is centre of both universe and solar system in its periodic movements (or rather solar system is not a recognised category, but at least of the bodies it involves - except for that thing about epicentres). But the Tychonian position is that Earth is absolute centre of the universe, but Sun relative centre of the bodies that really belong to solar system (i e Earth is within it but not of it). Earlier on, Heliocentrism also meant Sun being absolute centre of universe - that is Galileo's expressed but in 1633 abjured position.

There are two things wrong with these notions.


I am taking note : two. When I have dealt with these two, I have dealt with Keating, then.

First, the science is wrong. That’s bad enough.


Would be bad enough, if true.

What exact "science" is this wrong in?

Observational astronomy? Or astrophysical astronomy? Laplace recognised these as two different disciplines and gave one book to observational, which he describes in - appropriately - Geocentric terms. Then he starts book two by arguing for Heliocentrism being the most rational explanation.

I e, Geocentrism is not wrong in observational astronomy.

But as to astrophysical astronomy, I don't see how it can be wrong there either, unless you start out as discounting the angelic movers' explanation and force yourself to use Newton's laws "alone" (as in either alone or slightly modified by Einstein or even Roger Boskovic), as if "we now knew" that the angelic explanation "must be" false.

Worse, for Christians, is that the new geocentrists insist that the Bible (in the case of the Fundamentalists) or the Bible and the Church (in the case of the Catholics) teach infallibly that these scientific theories are true and must be accepted by faithful Christians. They are laying on Christian shoulders burdens that the Bible and the Church don’t really place there.


Neither Keating nor I are the Pope.

The ideal of ridding the faithful of non-necessary burdens was there in the Reformers too. But they were wrong, Confession is really Biblical. As in Confession of one's sins after Baptism to a Priest of the Church. See Epistle of St James and Gospel of St John 20:21-24. So, whatever the nobility of the motive, Keating might be wrong here. Like the reformers were.

Must I believe Abraham had two sons at age hundred to be saved? Not if I don't know it is in the Bible, but as soon as I do know, it, yes, I must believe it, since otherwise I would deny a dogma on the Holy Ghost : qui locutus est per profetas.

Some have taken the distinction St Thomas makes between what must be believed for its own sake (like Holy Trinity) and what is there as part of the packaging so to speak, as a distinction between what must be believed and what need not be believed. No, he very clearly states that the other stuff too must be believed as soon as you know it is in the Bible.

And he has no one contradicting him in high Church positions up to Vatican II or a bit before.

Most specifically, neither the Anfossi case, nor, even less, the Dante encyclical of Benedict XV, state in so many words that Heliocentrism may be believed.

Indeed, Benedict XV is very instructive here. Have you heard that conservative news anchor express himself on Obama's stance "against" Putin over Ukraine a year ago? "Affirm is not a strong word" he said.

No, and Benedict XV used no strong words to make perfectly clear that Heliocentrism was licit either. If Obama was afraid of Putin, Benedict XV was afraid of being ipso facto excommunicated as a heretic by the act confirmed by Urban VIII in 1633. Note, he was not stating that would be the case any more than Obama was stating he dared not face Putin. BUt he was not courageously disregarding 1633 decision as a matter already settled for free enquiry either.

But is is fine to know Keating is at least for freedom in this matter. Normally that would imply he is also for free discussion of the topic. He could have fooled me. What with his being a major representative or even the chief of Catholic Answers Forums and me being excluded for discussing this topic on it, what with my contacts with him resulting in a huge ignore attitude on FB, well, he could have fooled me.

Or is he for liberty only like the reformers were? Liberty for the less obviously Catholic alternative - and a censorship against Catholic apologetics in case these should succeedd in putting unnecessary burdens on faithful by discrediting the less obviously Catholic alternative.

Like saying that fasting is medical along with prayer and recommended as such by Jesus in a context of exorcism. Like saying that Jesus words about fasting and the bridegroom make fridays and even wednesdays ideal fasting days - because Wednesday the bridegroom was taken away in intention by the betrayal of Judas, and Friday He was taken away in reality, by the Crucifixion. And precisely therefore, Sundays are not fasting days. Because Sunday He was giving Himself back to His friends.

My Biblical stance, like that of St Robert Bellarmine, is pretty concentrated on Joshua X. Not just on what happened, and what words the astronomical event was expressed in, but the fact that Joshua turned to Sun and Moon rather than to Earth and its supposed daily rotational axis.

But this, and also an answer to his point that geostationary satellites are among his best scientific proof, was already given in the previous post, the one which answered CMI.

As far as Keating's honesty is concerned, about his concern for freedom, I am waiting for a readmission to Catholic forums, ideally under my initial user name, hansgeorg.** I'll perhaps update you if he does, but don't keep your breath.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Valentine, priest
martyred under Claudius Caesar
14-II-2015

* See: The Catholic World Report : Circling the New Geocentrists: An Interview with Karl Keating
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3692/circling_the_new_geocentrists_an_interview_with_karl_keating.aspx


** See : Catholic Answers > Members : hansgeorg
Banned : Last Activity: May 30, '12 2:04 am
http://forums.catholic.com/member.php?u=251724

Thursday, 12 February 2015

And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...

1) New blog on the kid : Answering Simcha Fisher, David Palm, Alec Mac Andrew and in part too Sungenis, 2) And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ..., 3) It Seems Keating Wrote a Book, 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What has that got to do with it?, 5) Were Greek Philosophers Evolutionist? And How Does Geocentrism Conflict with Observation?, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating slightly on CSL with Sungenis, 7) Creation vs. Evolution : Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan Club?

Here is a link to their article:

CMI : Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
Refuting absolute geocentrism
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati Published: 12 February 2015 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism


Here is the link, first, to Joshua X:

There are other passages, however, that require a more careful exegesis. After the Israelites crossed the Jordan into Canaan, they defeated the cities of Jericho and Ai (Joshua 1–8). Soon after that the residents of Gibeon tricked Israel to entering into a covenant with them (Joshua 9). Gibeon was to the west of Ai and an obvious next target for the invading army. The other peoples in the area were angry and went to war against the Gibeonites. Israel came to their aid and a great battle was fought (Joshua 10). In the midst of this battle, the Bible says:

At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel.

This very famous passage describes Joshua’s Long Day, and is often used to support geocentric views, but what is it saying, really? Obviously, the statements are being given in a local frame of reference. Why? Because the sun standing over Gibeon would not appear to be overhead anywhere except in the geographic vicinity of Gibeon. The valley of Aijalon is to the west of Gibeon. Therefore, the moon would not appear to be to the west of Gibeon to someone standing in Aijalon; it would be out over the Mediterranean. Many claim this passage teaches that God stopped the moving sun and moon. Yet there is nothing here to say that he did not temporarily slow down a rotating earth (as well as the hydrosphere and atmosphere). This would produce the same effect. Or He could have stopped the movement of everything in the universe. Same result. That something universal really happened in history is shown by legends of a long night in people groups on the other side of the globe.

Note that the mention of the moon is a mark of authenticity. The Amorites were sun worshippers, so it makes sense for God to show His power over the false god. But if His means really was slowing down the earth, as we suggest, then this would also affect the relative motion of the moon, which otherwise need not have been mentioned.

And let us not forget the reversing of the course of the sun in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:5–11, Isaiah 38:1–7), an event that was noticed, or at least enquired about, by astronomers outside of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:24–31). These deviations from the scientific norm are what allow us to identify miracles when they occur. In a geocentric universe, everything is one giant miracle with no simple explanation (see below). Certainly, a geocentrist would not expect the sun to stop or to move backward, but why not? There is no rational explanation for the way the universe operates, so why could something out of the ordinary not happen?


Now, let us start some picking to pieces of their false arguments.

First paragraph, just resuming background before Bible quote. Second paragraph, Bible quote. No false arguments so far. Third paragraph.

This very famous passage describes Joshua’s Long Day, and is often used to support geocentric views,


And was indeed so used by St Robert Bellarmine when in Galileo's presence he tried Galileo's first book on the subject (Galileo personally was neither accused nor tried in 1616 and St Robert wrote a letter he had not made Galileo abjure any proposition - only promise not to write any more on the subject.)

but what is it saying, really?


Perhaps sth to the point? St Robert thought so.

Obviously, the statements are being given in a local frame of reference.


Statements or commands? There are both kinds of sentences in the Bible text!

Why? Because the sun standing over Gibeon would not appear to be overhead anywhere except in the geographic vicinity of Gibeon. The valley of Aijalon is to the west of Gibeon. Therefore, the moon would not appear to be to the west of Gibeon to someone standing in Aijalon; it would be out over the Mediterranean.


Wait a second, are Gibeon and Aijalon mentioned in the author's (Joshua's no doubt, at a later time when he had time to write) description? Or is Gibeon and Aijalon mentioned in his commands before the miracle took place?

and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

Here we start to see a little problem for Heliocentric exegesis. Or I do, at least. And it is even not so pretty. Not so small.

I am an ex-Lutheran. And Swedish mainstream Lutheranism has been slanting to Modernism for centuries. So, obviously, even back in 19th C some Swedish Lutheran theologians no longer believed in demons. Now, what has this to do with it? Well, this means they could not take Jesus' words when exorcising demons as literally describing what He really wanted to happen as God omniscient in the flesh. There were slants to Kenotic heresy, but one slant was "adaptation theory" or "accomodation theory". He adapted his language to the demonological prejudices of his hearers, according to this theory. I think it is a heresy. And so I also think it is a heresy to suppose Joshua adapted his language to the geocentric prejudices of his hearers.

So, if Joshua was not adapting his language so much as to include positive untruth to accomodate to his hearers prejudices, perhaps since he was not God, it doesn't matter if he was genuinely ignorant? God knew what phenomena Joshua was praying for, and provided them, perhaps?

No, not quite. Joshua first prayed to God - At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord - and then spoke up in front of all Israel and spoke to the Sun and the Moon : and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

So, this would place Joshua's theoretically possible ignorance not in a prayer which God was free to correct, but after a prayer in "words working a miracle". You had better not try to make the prayer identical to the words spoken to Sun and Moon, or you would be making him a worshipper of Sun and Moon.

I have heard it suggested (or rather seen it suggested on the screen) that Joshua's miracle working words not only were in fact a prayer, but also that God would not have had time to instruct him, since the battle was raging. Well, no, not quite either. You see, for one thing this was - along with crossing of Jordan, earlier - probably the most important moment in the life of Joshua. It is inconceivable that God would all through his previous life not have prepared him properly for it, especially as God knew from all Eternity what role the passage would have in the debate. For another, Joshua was not exactly in a desperate hurry even. Sun and Moon don't pass that fast over heaven. And it was a question or pursuing fleeing enemies, not of fearing them. God could have given Joshua another five minutes to give him time to find a formula or to inspire a formula which would NOT have been interpreted as it was by St Robert. Even, Israel as such had had forty years in the desert. God could have mentioned a word or two about universe not being Geocentric, if that had been the case. I mean, all they did five days out of seven, as physical work, was collecting mannah for a day's sustenance, and walking. And the sixth day they collected mannah for two days' sustenance and were walking. And the seventh day they neither walked nor collected mannah. If God would have wanted to instruct them so as not to misunderstand Joshua's words, and of course Joshua so as to give him the right words (he was born in that desert wandering) He could have done so.

Now, it is true that the words spoken by Joshua are relative. But it is also true that he spoke to Sun and Moon and not to Earth or Tellurian Axis. Which is my main point. Now, CMI writers (two for this article) also give us another clue used by St Robert:

Note that the mention of the moon is a mark of authenticity. The Amorites were sun worshippers, so it makes sense for God to show His power over the false god. But if His means really was slowing down the earth, as we suggest, then this would also affect the relative motion of the moon, which otherwise need not have been mentioned.


It would affect the relative motion of the Moon, but not stop it. You see, Moon has a rotation around Earth in Heliocentric astronomy too - the one that takes a Month. If this were not a real rotation, Moon would always be on same side of Earth compared to Sun, and either would have no phases or would have phases over the year, not over the month.

And what does the text say?

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Supposing Heliocentrism to be true, in a normal day, Moon would appear to move nearly full circle around earth, but not quite a full circle. But on the Long Day - supposing it happened as CMI is suggesting, with Earth stopping - it would therefore have appear to move one 27th of a circle, about. Since the circle they suppose around Earth (and which Geocentrics suppose rather in relation to Zodiac which itself moves around Earth) takes 27.321582 days (according to wiki), in one day it completes 0.0366011016492383 of that circle. Or 13° (and some more) of the circular arc. This would not have been affected by the Earth stopping. So, the moon would not literally have stopped (inspired writer Joshua describing result) only have reversed in appearance and gone backwards for 13° during the 24 hours. Or at least 6°-7° during 12 hours, but 24 hours (thus 13°) are more likely:

The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

So 11 h. 30 minutes to 12 h. 30 minutes, or 23 - 25 hours. Depending on whether "day" refers to "day-and-night" (as in first day, second day, etc) or only to the day part of it (as in "called the light Day"). In this time, the moon would have visible moved in relation to objects at valley of Aijalon, as seen from Gibeon.

That is the conclusion of St Robert Bellarmine. From back when he and Galileo debated in 1616.

So, why exactly are the words of Joshua relative? Well, there are some diverse options for Geocentrics as to how the Universe works: empty space with celestial bodies going themselves East to West in it (Jews agree with Helios worshippers) or some kind of solid or firmness in a rotating space (Aristotle and St Thomas), but celestial bodies going backwards through its East to West movement in an individual movement from West to East along the Zodiac, taking a year for the Sun and a Month for the Moon (or rather 27.3 days for the Moon, since Moon by this motion relative to Zodiac enters in a relation to Sun's movement relative to the Zodiac, which relation changes and that gives us the full Lunar Month). My option is that Aristotle and St Thomas are right. God did not stop the Earth. Nor did God stop the Universe from rotating around it (that would probably have stopped time also). But God made the Sun and the Moon speed up the Eastward journeys, so Moon went 27 times faster than usual in order to stand still in relation to Gibeon, and so that Sun went 365 times faster than usual to stand still in zenith over Gibeon. Like a pair of motor boats speeding up an upstream direction so as to stand still in relation to the shore.

But now I have ventured into physics. And it seems, that CMI were going to argue about that too. So, I'd better scroll down and see:

Here’s the main logical problem with absolute geocentrism: it’s not that we could not construct a geocentric cosmology, as one of many allowable reference frames. It’s that there is no scientific or biblical reason why we would—there is no dynamic model to explain it, i.e. in terms of forces as efficient causes of motions.


There are TWO ways of explaining the motions.

The Pagan-Mythological and Jewish one (shared by some Christians in St Augustine's times) is that spirits lesser than God the Most High but larger than man (i e "gods" to those denying a real God, and "angels" to those affirming God) are moving the celestial bodies East to West each day. Each star, possibly (at least the Jewish view), each planet definitely, and of course Sun and Moon. The other view is the Philosophical one of Western Christendom at least by the Scholastic period: God provides a Westward movement of the orbits / firmament / in my updated version the ether is a firmament which is not a "solid body" as opposed to liquid or gas, but the "substance of space" and "substance of which light is the vibration". In it spirits lesser than Him, but larger than man, move at least bodies below the fix stars in relation to the Zodiac. Eastward.

Saying there are two explanations does not mean there is none. Only, neither of these two explanations strikes a certain community of sceintists as "scientific". The efficient causes are not "forces" in Newtonian terms, but spirits. In the Western Medieval view the One who moves Westwards stands out as vastly greater or mightier than the rest of them.

Yes, it could describe planetary positions accurately enough for pre-telescope astronomy, admittedly a great achievement, but it fails to explain the orbital motions of satellites of other planets.


Nope, just have to add angels for Deimos and Phobos dancing around Mars, like angel of Mars dances around Sun, while angel of Sun goes Eastward while all enjoy the Westward surge provided by God.

Yet, because it lacks predictive power, a fully-comprehensive geocentric model would be very, very complicated.


To describe Geometrically, yes. In fact, programme a computer to draw the orbits out, and when yu have done it, you get intricate very pretty orbits. These are of course abstracting from daily rotation. Take that into account, and any body each day describes a very near perfect circle. To explain, no, it is not so complicated. By taking the explanation FROM the realm of vectors TO the realm of artistry (which does not do away with vectors, but which gives non-vectorial reasons for paths taken) that problem is easily fixed.

They would need to add terms almost at random to account for the thousands of variations easily explained by geokineticism.


I am not sure what they mean by "thousands". I am sure that three variations explained by geokinetism as nutations in earth are equally explainable in geostasis is God's turning the Heavens round with a few twilts. Think aether.

There is another, perhaps stronger, point to make: geokinetics is the best way to understand the physics.


Or to misunderstand the "stone around a string" experiment as opposite forces of centrifugal and centripetal nature neatly balancing. No, the string is NOT a centripetal force, as gravitation is supposed to be in geokinetic physics, the string is an OBJECT. And it is not neatly balancing but firmly holding in the centrifugal force, by having a cohesion superior to it.

Here’s the main scientific problem with geocentrism: if absolute geocentrism is true, then the laws of physics are not universal.


Wrong. Not being the only laws, but being subordinate to 1) God moves any creature He wants and 2) created spirits move material bodies in so far as God has given them power over them (to human spirit a limited one over human body, to guardian angels on occasions over threatening objects, to angel of Sun over Sun - with the impetus needed for full circle backward in 365 odd days), before we get to 3) physical laws of how bodies influence bodies - that does not make them "non-universal" or "sometimes broken" in that sphere.

That is, experiments we do on earth cannot apply to things outside the atmosphere because Newton’s laws of motion and gravity cannot explain what we are seeing.


Can they explain everythingoberved on Earth? Hold a pen over the ground, they will explain where it falls if you drop it. But hold a pen over the paper and it is your will that explains where you stain it witgh ink from the pen. Your will, not the laws of Newton. That is the experiment which applies to celestial bodies with angelic movers. And to God moving the universe.

Absolute geocentrism requires a universe that does not work according to Newton’s laws. Yes, you can attempt to describe the way things revolve around the earth in a absolute geocentric system, but gravity cannot be used to explain the motion of those objects; another force is required to glue the universe together. Where does the change occur? Certainly before we get to the moon, for that must orbit the earth once a day. But we cannot detect any such transition! We can fly a plane, launch a satellite, send things to the outer solar system and there is no place where Newtonian mechanics does not apply.


Solution is, your planes and space shuttles are moving in the aether God moves Westward - it also moves atmosphere and waters (winds of passage, Oceanic Equatorial currents). No place of transition needed.

If you can’t use gravity to explain the motion of objects in the solar system, you can’t use gravity to explain the motion of space probes flying among those objects. It is that simple.


No, since the gravity even if Newtonian may be subordinate to another causality, and that one not interfering with space landings, but with day and night which are more relevant to us on Earth. To Geocentrics, the words about visible things showing forth the invisible ones are clearly reminiscent of Geocentric explanation range for Day and Night: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. - Geocentrism and God turning the Universe around us each day, that is how St Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin BOTH make their most accessible proof for God's existence. Precisely as Aristotle (though the latter, in later days, came to consider God only moved the Universe West by exciting love for Himself in the world soul, not by directly acting).

Absolute geocentrism is then nothing more than ‘stamp collecting’. One cannot make many predictions.


Sure one can: one can predict backwards that God had no problem and angels of Sun and Moon no problem to make the two Solar miracles, Joshua's long day, worked through a namesake of Jesus, and the returning a few lines, worked at choice of Hezekiah, an ancestor of the same Our Lord. Which prediction we find confirmed by the Holy Text.

The main protagonist in the geocentrism debate is a man named Claudius Ptolemy (AD 90–168), a Greek scholar living in the Egyptian city of Alexandria in the second century AD. He had a profound influence on this debate, to the point that today the terms “geocentric” and “Ptolemaic” are interchangeable.


St Thomas was pretty firmly Geocentric, since he based his Proof of God First Way (of the five) on Geocentrism. But he was well aware that Ptolemy might be off, there might be other ways of explaining (that is constructing geometrically) the orbits.

St Robert Bellarmine and Galileo agreed that Ptolemy had been refuted in certain particulars. So, St Robert Bellarmine referred Galileo to the system of Tycho Brahe, of which he was well aware (if not before, at least during the affair). Is CMI going to reuse the old canard that the Galileo cases were due to an undue dogmatisation of Aristotle and Ptolemy?

Prior to him, however, there was no unanimity among Greek thinkers. In fact, several solar-centric views predated Ptolemy’s geocentrism. The Greek scholar Aristarchus of Samos (310–230 BC) is but one of those people.


Possibly Aristarchus is but one of these. I'd like to hear names of the others, not a bare affirmation. But what is certain is that whether these thinkers were few or many, they were not in that particular very influential.

Interestingly, he also said that the sun must be further away than moon (because the moon can eclipse the sun). Since they have the same apparent size, he reasoned the size of the sun must be proportional to its distance behind the moon.


And this was accepted by Aristotle. And it was accepted by Ptolemy. And the four moons of Jupiter were accepted by St Robert Bellarmine ... so the point is?

And he was not the only ancient to struggle with it. The debate was known to famous people like Archimedes (287–212 BC), Seneca (4 BC – AD 45), Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79), and Plutarch (AD 45–120).


Sure, I'd believe you even more if you gave references to whdere in the text, but I believe you. How many of these considered the position of Aristarchus as more than a curiosity, if you read their texts? That is another reason why I'd like references.

Here, Ptolemy is cited as giving a reason from "earth would fall apart if it rotated each 24 hours", Copernicus is cited as returning the reason, it would be even more true for periphery of universe.

Now, Calvin knew of that argument and answered Epicurus/Lucrece. These had argued that the daily rotations of the Universe around Earth in layer above layer were products of chance. Calvin used the observation of Copernicus to prove that God alone could arrange the outer Heavens so that they all keep together in all this speed. Note, as for chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis a Catholic has not much quarrel with Calvin.

Some recent historians have tried to make the claim that Copernican theory was driven by some sort of Hermetic sun worship, but this is grossly anachronistic. By taking the ‘perfect’ sun and putting it at the center, instead of worshiping the sun, Copernicans were demoting it to the worst place.And even though the Hermitica was widely read among the scholars of Copernicus’ time (the Renaissance), we do not believe Copernicus was among the adherents.


I have not tried to make that point. But I have tried to make a slighty similar and yet very different one: Heliocentrism favours Sun worship. Let us take First Way of St Thomas:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


Recent and Heliocentric / Geokinetic commentators have made the point that local movement was not all that was meant.

Obviously, local movement is in Geocentrism the most obvious example of this: God moves the Ether at its outermost edge or all through, this moves with it Sun and Moon and stars and also Winds of passage, Oceanic currents and Coriolis effects. A chain of movements from the unmoved mover God to the moved little details of Gulf stream giving us in Europe a milder winter than you have over West of Atlantic, because the Equatorial Stream is stopped by the Gulf and demotes North towards us, before the water returns to East shores of Atlantic. And the mild winter in its turn moves my survival chances a bit higher.

Now, take away that Geocentric perspective, where there is ONE universal movement involving ALL (except Earth at its low position and at levels lower than atmosphere and hydrosphere) points to ONE First unmoved Mover.

In that case, objects in Solar System would have as local mover gravitation of Sun, precisely like exoplanets would have as local mover some other star. Even more, all quality changes as opposed to local movement, which St Thomas also included in the concept movement, might point back to a first mover called - Sun. So, it would make "Sun" or "Our Star" a candidate for a local divinity of "Our Solar system". This was not Galileo's thought - if it had been he would have been burned on the stake. But it is very clearly a possible rough analysis of the thoughts attributed to Giordano Bruno. Note, I have not read his actual texts, I found beginning of Ash Wednesday Supper very unreadable with its "hush hush". But since Giordano Bruno had been tried also by St Robert Bellarmine and found guilty of pertinacious heresy and burned in 1600, he had some licit apprehension of where Heliocentrism might lead. So far from having been moved to Heliocentrism by un-Christian Mysticism, I think it was the reverse.

CMI is, needless to say, less good on history of Astronomy than on history of the Darwinian and Long Age theories they combat. In their "fun romp through history" they give us this:

~ 1250 AD Thomas Aquinas nearly fixes Ptolemaic astronomy in the minds of his contemporaries


Er, no. He fixes Geocentrism as starting point of one proof of God, he mentions Ptolemy but does so in a way so as NOT to fix him firmly in the minds of his contemporaries.

~1380 Nicole Oresme
~1450 Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa


Ah, yes. The guys who realised Heliocentrism was possible, but did not buy it anyway. Not commented on in the article, as far as I saw.

But I see there are two things more I must counter, and I had better do it now and together.

+
Put your finger on your nose. Now alternately open and shut one eye at a time. Your finger should move to the left and right as you look at it from each eye. This is called parallax. ... Parallax is very useful in astronomy. The earth’s orbit is 150 million kilometers in radius. Thus, when we look at a star in the summer and in the winter, that is like having two eyes that are very, very far apart. If the star is close, its position will change through the seasons. However, most stars do not measurably change position because they are too far away for us to measure the change in angle. The few that do are closer to us than the ones that do not.


Assuming this is the right explanation for parallax, of course, i e not for the general idea of parallax (it defines as this idea "put your finger on your nose" etc), but for the astronomical phenomenon usually referred to as parallax : the word "parallax" could be a misnomer.

Now, if it is true that "parallax" (the astronomic phenomenon) depends on "parallax" (as in: the earth’s orbit is 150 million kilometers in radius, thus, when we look at a star in the summer and in the winter, that is like having two eyes that are very, very far apart), it must follow that, as Earth were only moving ONE way around the Sun, not two opposite directions at once, all "parallax" (the observed astronomic phenomenon again) would be same direction.

63 Ophiuchi is an O-type giant star in the constellation Sagittarius, despite its name. During a 2009 survey for companions of massive stars, it was observed using speckle interferometry but no companion was found. Uncertain negative parallax measurements of –0.77 ± 0.40 mas suggest that this extremely luminous star may be located about 4000 light-years away.


Negative parallax measurements = "parallax" going the other way.

Heliocentric way out : the measurements are "uncertain". How are all the other measurements certain then?

Other way out for Heliocentrics, the parallax is 0.77 arcseconds closer to nil than the one usually taken as nil - which means that the one usually considered as nil is at least 0.77 arcseconds positive parallax. That in turn implies that the parallaxes which are registered as positive are greater than registered as.

I had misread "-0.77 mas" as "minus 0.77 arcseconds", while it is "minus 0.77 milliarcseconds". However, in the Tycho Main Catalogue, there are objects in the range of minus 700 and more arcseconds, whether this includes 63 Ophiuchi or not. There seem to be divergences between catalogues.


Parallax in milliarcseconds for α Centauri are acc. to Söderhjelm (1999) 747.1 ± 1.2, and according to van Leeuwen (2007) for α Centauri A 754.81 ± 4.11, for α Centauri B 796.92 ± 25.90. See wiki for Alpha Centauri.

So, if our second Heliocentric solution for 63 Ophiuchi is that parallax of 0 milliarcseconds is really a positive one of at least around, 770 milliarcseconds, then the one that is 796.92 (B) as measured against the supposed nil parallax would in reality be 1566.92 milliarcseconds, while α Centauri A would be 1524.81. This gives a radically closer and smaller universe (though of course still quite compatible with the immensity noted by Ptolemy) than conventually. A doubled parallax of α Centauri is about a halfed distance to α Centauri. It would also mean a universe where "sphere of fixed stars" had indeed some thickness (with its "main thrust" between the distance of α Centauri and of 63 Ophiuchi), but was nothing like a space uninterruptedly filled with stars.

The third option for the "parallax" of 63 Ophiuchi, observed as other way round than it should be, therefore noted -0.77 arcseconds, as opposed to (+)0.77 is this one: Geocentrism is true. Parallax in the proper sense has NOTHING to do with ANY "parallax". Angels are dancing with theirs stars and the one holding 63 Ophiuchi was told to dance other way round, so as to help us get out of the error of Geokinetism. And if so, "parallax" as in "the earth’s orbit is 150 million kilometers in radius, thus, when we look at a star in the summer and in the winter, that is like having two eyes that are very, very far apart" is not the true meaning of the measured parallax, and that one gives us per se no information at all on how far each star is away. Keep this in mind:

If objects are rotating around the earth, we can calculate the speed at which they are moving, and the speed depends on their distance.


For Moon or Sun, where distance measure does not depend on "parallax" but on angle of sunlight reflection on Moon for the Sun, or on angle of Moon from two points opposite each other on Equator, there is no problem. We can. Sure. I did so in Spanish about how fast angel of Sun and angel of Moon were driving the heavenly bodies through the aether on Joshua's long day:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Parece que me equivoqué sobre contemporaneidad de la rotación del Eter al nivel del Sol y de la Luna?
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2015/01/parece-que-me-equivoque-sobre.html


After calculating the problem through a few times, I concluded that I did not "me equivoqué", but meanwhile I did calculations (based on mean distance to Sun, mean distance to Moon). But when we get to objects whose distance is calculated by "parallax" ....

They must travel the circumference of their orbit every day. In big bang theory at least, there is nothing preventing stars from moving faster than the speed of light. This is called ‘superluminal speed’ and big bang cosmologists assume that anything outside one Hubble radius (about 14 billion light years) is receding from us at greater than c.


Well, 14 billion light years would perhaps not be the distance of the furthest objects, even if Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati didn't state the objection?

But in a geocentric universe any object beyond the orbit of Neptune would be moving faster than c, because it would take more than one day to travel a circle of that circumference at the speed of light. If geocentrism is true, there should be a ‘spatial Coriolis’ seen in the Pioneer probes and other objects we have sent into the heavens.


Neptune is directly centred on Sun. Sun on Earth. This means that radius of Neptune around Earth involves at any moment either sum or difference between the distances Sun-Neptune and Sun-Earth. Or in some cases Hypothenuse, which is a kind of both sum and difference (in 3-4-5 triangle, hypothenuse 5 is greater than difference 1 and smaller than sum 7). Say Sun was towards Virgo of us and Neptune toward Pisces, Neptune's distance from us would be SN - SE. Or both were to Virgo or both to Pisces (automatically implies Neptune is beyond Sun, unlike with Venus and Mercury), Neptune's distance from us would be SN + SE. A case where they were neither in opposition nor in conjunction would like hypothenuse case for triangle lie in the range SN - SE < x < SN + SE. This means that maximal radius of Neptune around Earth is SN + SE. Maximal distance SN = 4,537,580,900 km + maximal distance SE = 151,930,000 km = 4,689,510,900 km. Let us multiply by π = 14,732,532,992 km/day, let us divide by 24 = 613,855,541 km/h. Divide by 3600, you get km/sec = 170,515. Which is less than 299,492 km/sec. Perhaps by "any object beyond the orbit of Neptune" means "any object approching orbits further away"? Now, Pluto has a calculated aphelium of 7,311,000,000 km from Sun, but a perihelium of 4,437,000,000 km from Sun. And it seems this perihelium was reached in 1989 Sep 05. If its Orbital period is 247.68 years, the aphelium is reached 123.84 years before or after 1989 Sept 5th. But after = in future way beyond us. Before = before it was discovered in 1930. So, the aphelium of Pluto has never been observed. We have never seen Pluto in a position to move faster than light around us if Geocentrism is true.

There is another thing to "spatial Coriolis". To a Heliocentric, Coriolis as observed on Earth means that waters of Oceans "go West" at equator, because it is left behind in the West while Earth rotates to the East. But to a Geocentric of my school (if I have one), Coriolis means Ether, as moved by God, is moving Ocean waters West at the equator. Now, the rotating aether might also see to it that no light was left behind, but rather directed in relation to ether - stereoma indeed! In that case, the rotation of aether would match the rotation of, say, fixed stars (whereever they are, it's presumably beyond Pluto).

There should be a ‘spatial Coriolis’ as well, because objects leaving earth are starting with an inertial reference frame radically different from the one to which they are travelling. If we aimed them at a planet, they should miss—by millions of miles! Note that this argument is exactly the same as the one Copernicus quoted from Ptolemy above, only here instead of a curving falling object we have a curving rising object.


In curving rising objects, the daily rotation of aether means that the curve is spiralling upwards from Earth, generally upwards from where it left. Or, God and angels directed the mismatches so that they compensated. This is, of course, if these space travels have really taken place. They have another implication for Heliocentrics, and I have tried to see if it was verified:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Asking an Erudite for Optical Proof
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/09/asking-erudite-for-optical-proof.html


On another occasion, I got a kind of positive answer, but somewhat shilly-shallying about sources.

In order to get to a planet, the ship would have to accelerate to unbelievable speeds. Where does this extra propulsive force come from?


The rotationals speeds (as opposed to upwards, where initial acceleration is provided by propulsion at for instance Cape Canaveral), come from the rotating aether. Which gets its rotational speed from God. And movement WITH aether would, on my view, not constitute an acceleration in the Newtonian physical sense, it would only be moving locally faster, but since along with aether there is no acceleration needing vectors. The rotation is provided by God. This theory of aether also is behind my answer to (and hopefully expressed in answer to) Tom Trinko about Geostationary Satellites:



Obviously, for those who are sufficiently interested in looking this debate up.

Here is another example of the speed problem: the moon orbits the earth at about 1 km/s, with an average distance from the center of the earth of 385,000 km (this is based on simple trigonometry). In a geocentric universe, instead of orbiting every 27.32 days, it orbits daily, meaning it must move about 27 km/s. This is much faster than the Apollo spacecraft sent to the Moon in the 1970s. In fact, it is faster than the 11.2 km/s required to reach escape velocity. The Moon should sail away into space, but it does not because it is not orbiting at that speed and is held nicely in place by the force of gravity.


Except that Moon is mainly moved by an angel, not by an equilibrium of centrifugal and centripetal. Or if the simple fact that Moon is moving WITH the aether rather than in relation to it (except the part which makes up its orbital period) takes care of the problem.

And think about what would be required to bring a long-period comet in from the apex of its orbit (aphelion) to a close approach with the sun (perihelion). We can estimate the mass of many different comets (and after the Rosetta/Philae rendezvous described above, we know the mass of one comet to a high degree of precision), and thus we know how much force it would take to account for the necessary acceleration to bring them closer in within a geocentric universe. To go from a speed greater than c to a speed much less than c, and then back again, comets would have to come with warp-drive.


Once again, moving with the aether, the rotational speed of which is taken care of by God, takes care of the problem.

Think about it. If the universe revolves around the earth, stars circle the earth 365 times a year. For a star exactly 10 light years away, the star would revolve 3,652.42 times before its light reached earth. In other words, the light beam should trace out a path that looks more like a very tight spiral, with arms 24 light-hours apart (assuming a finite and constant speed of light). This would be able to be measured easily. And, since we have sent multiple space probes (with cameras) far enough away from earth, this would have been discovered by now Thus, the stars do not rotate about a stationary earth.


See further my previous discussion of parallax. There are no stars that one must take as being 10 light years away (and that includes the Cygni star that Bessel observed), since "parallax" so taken is really a dance of its angel.

Also, detecting a spiralling passage of light, when the rotational component is simply the rotation of the aether, might be less than as easy as they think.

But my answer is already rather longish. Here I leave off. For now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
UL of Nanterre
Seven holy Founders
of the Servites of the BVM
12-II-2015

Update 2-IX-2015: So, being wrong about 63 Ophiuchi, see square above, are there no great negative parallaxes which have same implication? See square below:

The maximum negative parallax I found, at any rate, had rectascension 040.79214577 and declination +41.43010962. It is not 63 Ophiuchi, since that star has (according to wiki) Right ascension 17h 54m 54.04380s and Declination −24° 53′ 13.5413″. Even if the system of the catalogue did allow a totally different notation of rectascension, the declination would hardly vary between ... well, here is what the README has to say about ra and dec:

Right ascension (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H8/T8 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [0,360];

Declination (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H9/T9 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [-90,90]

T8 and T9 are the fields I copied. These should be identical for the H8 and H9 fields in the other catalogue.

Well, what do we get:

Catalogue Selected: Hipparcos Main Catalogue

Fields and parameter search limits:
ra (degrees): Min 040.791 Max 040.793
dec (degrees): Min 41.429 Max 41.431

0 entries satisfied your request.


But switching to Tycho Main we do get one, namely the one I started with. Parallax -904.4 mas. More than a thousand times greater negative parallax than the one I read (when rereading correctly) for 63 Ophiuchi.

In French it's état voyou (links)

Rogue state.

About my best description of states that do this:

A Miracle for Two Sisters : Abducted Rengo Mother: Send a message to America for me…
https://amiracle42sisters.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/abducted-rengo-mother-send-a-message-to-america-for-me/


Her message:

“Children don’t belong to the government. The government belongs to the people.”

Or states that do this:

Crisis Magazine : Leviathan Groaning
Anthony Esolen : February 17, 2012
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/leviathan-groaning


A little disagreement, though:

Back in the days when Swedes were men, not sheep, they raided the coasts of Europe in their long ships, burning and looting. Oh for the Vikings of old! For when they had either loaded their ship with your tribute or razed your village to the ground, they left, to enjoy their spoils; and you could go on living your life without interference, with your cow and a couple of chickens, and a field for corn and potatoes, and children, whom you would love and raise by your best lights, as mothers and fathers have done since the dawn of the human race.


For one, thing, Swedish Vikings were not so much into Europe as into Finland and Russia and Ukraine, which were not yet part of it, the ones who harassed Europe were usually Danes and Norwegians. But more importantly, they sometimes did leave victims with a child or two or three less than before. It was called slave hunt. I also call this modern version of Yanissary recruitment (with its Turkish obsolete model) a form of slave hunt.

Read more on:

Friends of Domenic Johansson
http://friendsofdomenic.blogspot.com

Monday, 9 February 2015

Qu'est-ce que les gays et les homohystériques ont en commun?

Un gaydar trop actif, qui signale une homosexualité là où elle n'existe pas.

Parmi les salauds qui ont tenu à me proposer ce que je ne veux pas, il faut signaler des gens qui ont visiblement eu comme propos de ma familiariser avec une acceptance de moi-même comme gay.

Puisque je ne le suis pas, ils perdent leur temps s'ils me veulent quelque peu du bien, et ils perdent en tout cas le mien.

J'ai autrefois voulu réutiliser le mot "homophobe" en analogie avec "bactériophobe". Mais le concepte s'appelle déjà autre chose, à savoir homohystérique.

Or, des homohystériques parmi les Catholiques m'ont privé de la compagnie de pas mal de filles dont autrement j'aurais pu épouser une. Et des gays avec un gaydar identique ... bon il me semble fortement qu'il y a des réseaux avec intérêts psychoanalytiques qui me prennent pour un "homosexuel autodestructif" tandis que je ne suis ni l'un ni l'autre.

Les filles Musulmanes ou déjà connues comme Juives n'ont pas à me considérer comme pédé juste parce que je refuse de me mettre en danger d'apostasie pour elles. La vérité est très bien connue par moi, et j'ai un délai avant de tomber amoureux, de manière de par exemple éviter un amour à travers les barrières de confession.

Athées, Bouddhistes occidentales et ainsi de suite, si elles se trouvent de toute manière en train de discuter avec les Chrétiens, c'est autre chose. J'ai les arguments, je connais la culture. Par contre, certaines autres cultures, je les commence à connaître comme répétitivement "optimistes". Et si telle ou telle m'a trouvé tel moi-même, c'est peut-être parce que le contact avec ce genre de réseaux, homosexualistes, juifs, maçonniques, sécularistes, psychiatriques, musulmans et ainsi de suite m'a fait perdre le sens dû de limites entre optimisme quelque part rationnel ou sémirationnel et un "optimisme" trop répétitif. Vous savez genre "when Hell freezes over" - "you mean there is a chance?". Une fille qui me trouve sérieusement tel, qu'elle n'hésite pas à me gifler, si nécessaire.

Mais encore, il y a des filles envers qui j'ai eu sinon raison au moins motif de l'être - parce que tels ou tels entourages les ont détournées de moi, l'une après l'autre, pour tels ou tels mobiles préjugés et erronés. En Suède par des préjugés anti-Catholiques (là où j'étais entouré par des filles la plupart du temps non-catholiques), en France par des préjugés Modernistes de la part de pseudo-Catholiques - et aussi par préjugés contre moi, erronés, créés par les réseaux que je déteste pour se venger sur moi en me présentant devant les Catholiques qui le sont comme faisant parti d'eux - c'est à dire des réseaux.

Car, si un seul défaut colle au monde Catholique traditionnel, c'est de trop se fier aux informations sur des particuliers cueillis par des réseaux. Je considère qu'on peut considérer "Jean XXIII" ou Roncalli comme non-Catholique dès qu'on sait ce qu'il a écrit en paragraphe 6 de Mater et Magistra, implicant que le Cosme se meut en obéissance automatique à des lois aveugles et impersonnels, et en plus que les lois morales de la nature humaine sont objet d'étude - plutôt que données immuables par le décalogue. Je ne sais pas encore où un certain noble a cueilli les informations derrière "Nikita Roncalli", mais le fait de ne pas avoir condamné le Communisme, des ordres donnés à propos soeur Lucie et ainsi de suite, donnent un peu de crédibilité. Par contre, si tel curé a de tel paroissien qui l'a d'un frère qui était dans une loge et qui l'avait de sa loge, que Roncalli était franc-maçon, comment ne pas croire que la loge à su que tel membre avait un frère paroissien pieux avec un curé? Comment ne pas craindre qu'ils puissent utiliser la confiance en "informations confidentielles" comme un canal pour répendre leurs mensonges?

Si par hazard ils ont dit la vérité (et une vérité répérable par d'autres moyens, comme je viens de dire) à propos de Roncalli, comment ne pas craindre qu'ils ont pu faire ça pour de la suite utiliser ce genre de confiance pour noircir devant les Catholiques encore pas apostats, par exemple de gens comme moi? Ou qu'ils ne l'aient pas déjà utilisé contre C. S. Lewis et J. R. R. Tolkien non seulement en personnes, mais aussi par extension dans les œuvres et dans les admirateurs, dont moi-même?

Pourquoi ai-je parlé du gaydar d'un gay tout alors? Bon, un homme bouffi, un Algérien sans la religion musulmane, connu des queues de St Eustache comme socialiste, se met à côté de moi, et à côté d'autres aussi. Il dit qqc sur "chéri" quand il s'asseoit et je me demande s'il me vise.* Ce qui me fait mal au cœur. En plus il met Mireille Mathieu sur le vidéo - des chants très beaux. En soi ça ne devrait pas m'inquiéter, mais c'est connu de mes blogs que Mireille Mathieu à mon avis ferait une meilleure ministre de la culture que Frédéric Mittérand qui se vante d'être homosexuel pédéraste, qu'Aurélie Filipetti qui a voulu qu'on bouffe tous du curé et possiblement aussi (quoique ce n'est pas encore sûr ou documenté) que Fleur Pellerin. Si elle n'a pas d'autres défauts, elle a été aux côtés de Jospin, de Moscovici, de Royal ... et j'ai mes doutes sur ses valeurs familiales quoique certains circonstances peuvent être la faute d'un autre. J'avais donc l'impression assez déplaisante que cet homme pourrait être en train de me faire la cour. J'espère qu'il laisse tomber, je suis assez - pas homohystérique mais ce qu'on appelle normalement de nos jours, quoique abusivement, homophobe.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Cyrille d'Alexandrie
9-II-2015

* En regardant les autres autour, je n'ai pas eu l'impression que peut-être il disait plutôt "chérie" à une personne féminine. Mise à jour: confronté à ceci, il dit ne me rien avoir adressé l'autre fois, il devrait avoir parlé à qqn d'autre. Tant mieux si ce n'était pas à moi!

Obama's Take on History

1) In Answer to Mr. Obama's question from a long time ago, 2) Obama's Take on History

We already knew he had a collectivist view of schools.

At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.

Obama said that even though religion is a source for good around the world, there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”


He summed up a certain ideology. Note he did not say - unless misquoted - that under Crusades and Inquisition [some] have committed terrible deeds, but that people committed, which will be taken as people who managed the affairs were each time or so committing terrible deeds. Is this true?

Before bringing up Crusades, what about asking whether they were agressive or retaliative wars?

As to Inquisition, the English one was the worst - and it was not in the name of Papacy, but in the name of the English Parliament, decision from 1401. It continued past the Reformation. Bloody Mary was not acting on behalf of either Pope or husband King Philip - but on behalf of that law. James I (as he was in England), who was not a Catholic, applied it in 1611 or 1612 against a Baptist who was burnt on the stake. At a time when Inquisition had no point any longer either as to Orthodoxy nor as to hope of retaining religious unity in England.

As to "slavery and Jim Crow", I think at least Jim Crow laws were from a XIXth C. already very secularised in the élite - in fact an élite the secularism of which he continues himself. Slavery was starting - under less bad initial premises - under Cromwell, notoriously an Anti-Catholic, notoriously one of the believers in Foxe's Book or Martyrs which attacks Inquisition and Catholicism over and over again.

And if you shift perspective from slaves exploited for labour to Amer-Indians treated worse than slaves, or Esquimeaux, take a look at Canada and at pretty secularised United Church of Canada. Catholics were off the really guilty decisions there.

As to continued slavery, it is ditinct from slave hunt and slave trade. Pope Gregory XVI condemned these latter, Pope Pius IX said there were some real cases for someone being slave - meaning apart from personal crime, or from voluntary self sale, the case when one is already a slave and is not being either mutilated or seduced to sin by one's master. That is why he supported Confederacy. It was, as you may know, no longer involved in slave trade.

And in Africa, slave hunt was being perpetrated by several small peoples against each other, so that at least sometimes the ones who were captured and partly sold to Europeans had been guilty of the crime of slave hunt first. Even if Kunta Kinte was not such a case, he was simply a victim of inter-African slave hunt.

As to the consecutive history of his family, some misadventures, as I recall, would under Spanish, i e under fully Catholic, rule have implied the master would have been legally forced to free the slave.

At least this was the theory of the Spanish legislation and barring episodes of secularism, it was even applied.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Cyril of Alexandria
9-II-2015

Breitbart : Obama At National Prayer Breakfast: ’People Committed Terrible Deeds In The Name of Christ’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/05/obama-at-national-prayer-breakfast-people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-christ/