BA – are right to ban the bearing of crucifix
The decision of BA to ban the wearing or bearing of the Christian crucifix is based on the stout resolution of the Airline which best upholds the empire and all she cherishes. BA has always been in a position to reflect globally all that is best in our democracy – It is a microcosmic representation of all that is great about Britain.
We did not fight wars to be dictated to by avante garde liberals who want to pander to the whims of pansies .the management have spoken; causa fineta.
How dare they challenge their betters? Since the war the underclass have been let get away with murder, they have got far above their station. All people neither are nor created equal. We have a monarchy, which attests to that, and our anthem espouses that very ethos lest we ever forget. We have sadly lost our empire, and the world is a poorer place because of it. When Britannia ruled there was justice, civilisation, propriety and a keen sense of feudal spirit.
We taught America how to create a country; we taught them the rule of law, and the very law itself. She has not always shown her loyalty to us, most notably during the Suez crises, which by any analysis was little short of a frank betrayal. We however in the true spirit of the phlegmatic nation that we are showed tolerance in their hours of amnesia; Britain is magnanimous, compassionate, understanding and most pivotal to any nascent civilisation – democratic.
This is why BA is so utterly correct to ban the bearing of the crucifix. Anyone who believes otherwise is either a pinko or is a subversive. Look always to your betters we say; and BA has done this nation proud in being the flagship of her majesty’s airline throughout the world – what was our world and as we say, a better place then.
History will record the unique civilisation we brought to untamed savaged in every continent; Britain was as fundamentally necessary to the uninitiated, baseness of the colonies as was Rome and Athens.
In carrying across the nations the emblem of BA, the airline bears the proud echoes of a tradition, which was forged in war and tempered in wisdom;
No crucifixes; BA says no.
NO NO .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"We taught America how to create a country; we taught them the rule of law, and the very law itself."
The reason we "went our own way" was because we shouldn't have to pay our own way with the natural resources we sent your ungrateful country, along with being taxed on a higher order than citizens of the Crown. We saw a broken system, and corrected most, if not all of the mistakes your country has been wrestling with since the Magna Carta. If you are going to quote history, at least get your facts straight.
...oh, and you're welcome for our assistance during the Second World War.
"The decision of BA to ban the wearing or bearing of the Christian crucifix is based on the stout resolution of the Airline which best upholds the empire and all she cherishes."
Then ban ALL religious symbols, to include yarmulkes, head wraps, buhrkas, Muslims from praying, and the bindi from Indian women. If you are going to be obnoxious and discriminatory, be consistent.
"BA has always been in a position to reflect globally all that is best in our democracy ..."
From the Wickipedia website, Democracy is defined as: (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have an equal vote or voice in shaping policy or electing government officials.
Soooo, (pregnant pause) your example of democracy is a better example of a dictated rule being imposed upon mindless subjects. Oh, I forgot, you are a citizen of a country with a Monarch. -my bad.
"All people neither are nor created equal. We have a monarchy, which attests to that,..."
Get over yourself. Everyone is created with the equal right to become unequal.
One senses the continuous guilt which weaves through the fabric of this vitriol.
There is an unconcealed resentment towards the very Nation who gave you birth.- and the jealousy of our Monarchy is equaly rather sudden and stark.
With regard to the rest of the diatribe I shall use the words of Winston Churchill , when sitting on the commode , as his valet announced the arrival of an enraged editor of the ''Express'' - Lord Beaverbrook
'' Tell his lordship I can only deal with one shit at a time ''
Don’t take this personally, just take it.
There is no guilt on this end, only on yours. It can be sensed by the lack of direct comment and avoidance of any of the points made in my "diatribe." Clearly you can't refute any of them. (Laughing) The only resentment is about the arrogant tone you continue with after realizing what a poor job your country did governing colonies. Clearly, your leadership hadn’t a clue of the local issues.
I admire the traditions that your country has towards the Royal family. I think tradition is important in society. I also have several British friends that enjoy their time here in my country; and when I informed them of this little exchange of ideas, they laughed; I trust you understand, the laughter was directed towards you. They consider themselves loyal countrymen/women, and consider you to be a pompous and arrogant (not my words). Remember, the Prime Minister and the Parliament (both Houses) is where the action is.
Funny how you should use the word “vitriol” in your response (again, here I am defining words to someone who should be a master of the English language –also a comment made by my British friends); the comments made were factual, not abusive or venomous. It was not expressing blame, censure, or bitter deep-seated ill will. It was directed at comments made in your posting, much like a debate, where there are two sides to an issue. Argumentative would have been a better choice. If you didn't like the feedback you received, or have your thoughts challenged openly, disable the comments section of your blog.
It should also be noted that it was shameful to demean Winston Churchill by painting a picture of him on a commode. It was childish and immature –surprising coming from someone trying to revere himself as an elitist. But since you’ve started down this road -at least he was doing something productive, and not full of...
...himself.
There seems little point in pursuing this farce . you have an opinion and in the words of vaoltaire 'i may disagree with everything you say but i will defend with my very life your every right to say it
you sir , i gather , are a military man , or were . i applaud you. the point that really offends on this side of the pond , irrespective of the urgings of your Brittish friends is that our Pm who supported you in this vexatious conflict - Iraq -has in the most profligate and extravagant way lost his and our influence in Europe . the realisation which Churchill came sadly too late to appreciate was that he copuldnt hedge his bets both in europe and the USA , at the same time - hence perhaps his rablasian comment to Beaverbrook -
Maggie Thatcher rightly in my view uobraided Bush 1 for wavering on kuwait- it is not a time to be lilly livered - she chided him - and the civilised world applauded .
You are equally voiceriferous on freedom and liberty-
Was not George Washington a dealer in the slave trade - perhaps i do him an injustice , but vicarious participation does not excuse the social scotoma.
Our PM had the decency to apologise for the inhumanities of slavery to every nation it was cruelly foisted upo.
I can see a time when our Queen shall condider aploogising for the famine - the wretchedness of this is henious atrocity one of our great country's most grevious of mortal sins . Victorian England took the view that in order to cudgel the feckless and indiginous Irish out oof their inertia , to impose a then popular political / economic policy of laissez faire .
The markets would , so the thinking went would determine the value of the industries worthy of enocomic pursuit, eg flax ; linnen ; pottery , fishery , tanning etc.
I do not see Mr Bush being quite so magnanamous towards the southern blacks ; but perhaps i do him an injustice . moreiver , what is your own view of slavery - or indeed your very worthy Brittish friends.
I advise caution with such friends . You are likely to get altogether the wrong impression , most especially if they are readers of the ''Guardian Newspaper ''
Your opinions are interesting. Not quite arresting but interesting. It seems unlikely that you will be persuaded by rational argument and debate , this is to my great regret .
You , in the words of your poet Robert Frost have taken the darker path in the forrest . That is what makes the difference .
I am tempted to go on . but i shall desist even though my failing like that of mr Wilde is that I can resist everything except temptetion.
Sir, well said. I think we can agree to disagree.
"what is your own view of slavery" -it is summed up this way -it was wrong. Only because of the color of their skin, and perceived lack of culture and intelligence level (of that time) were they taken advantage of. Even today, we are on the receiving end of years of hatred being the same ethnic background as those who enslaved them. Try to explain that one's family didn't arrive in this country until the 1880's, stayed in New York, and fought on the Union side of the Civil War does little to relieve any animosity. Guilt by caucasion seems to be the rule of law in some of their minds.
Yes, I am retired from the military -very perceptive of you. I choose not to rub it in the face of anyone. Everyone serves in their own different way, and has their reasons for such.
"I do not see Mr Bush being quite so magnanamous towards the southern blacks ; but perhaps i do him an injustice."
-yes, the media here is biased and grabs onto the biggest target to play the character assassination game. Bush's perceived hatred towards blacks stems from Hurricane Katrina (media-wise). Th proper target should have been Mayor Ray Naggin, who when faced with the scenario of what could have happened, should have gotten some of the population out of town on the school buses that were part of his pre-plan for disasters of this magnitude. But he is black, and the liberal media here won't point fingers in such a direction, nor would they point at the female Governor. FEMA was a good target,but when the director resigned, the press set their sights on a much bigger target.
Good day sir.
My mistake with the year, my finger slipped. 1840's.
Hi Ed ,
Id like you to read at your leisure my last two bloggs;
as you may appreciate by now the one about the crucifix etc was a rant ;
but this is not;
THE WAR AND THE EXECUTION - IRAQ
The classsical idea of a just war demands that aim is moral;
Classical scholars defined war as an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence. Many credit Augustine with the founding of just war theory but this is incomplete. As Johnson notes, in its origins just war theory is a synthesis of classical thought .Many would accredit to Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine this refined and redefined validation of war – The Just War Tradition- Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war. It sets the tone, and the parameters, for the great debate.
Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
That the likelyhood of success is positive, that the means are proportionate towards that end.
The invasion of Iraq fails on each of these tenets. An outraged US President desperately seeking a perpetrator for the attacks on the Twin Towers declared it. When an obvious target in the form of an obvious aggressor could not be found, the State of Terror was invented, and later Iraq was dressed up to be the manifestation of that State. The US invaded without the mandate of the UN.
The Shock and awe strategy to bomb a city into submission prior to the land invasion was brutal, barbarous and yes murderous. It was indiscriminate and slaughtered thousands of civilians. It was on a scale of carnage and in equal ignominy to the bombing of Dresden in WW2 .
The leadership was topppled and the regeimen changed .The Americans used a con man (Chabli) to usurp / install a favourable leader. They succeed in installing a leadership as crass and fundamentalist as the one they deposed. The despot was tried in a courtroom where his protestations could be switched off and his remonstrations be screened off at the touch of a button by an unconcealed vengeful judge. He could have pleaded that the Anthrax which he used against the Kurds was supplied by the US, he might have referred to his former relations with Rumsfield, and the US support in his was against Iran but the charges against him were selective in that they had no material basis for US or UK collusion. These were Saddams own killings in revenge for the attempt on his life.
And so after a hearing which appeared at times like some slapstick judicial romp; a farce of truly theatrical proportions he was not surprisingly sentenced to die. He pleaded to be shot as a soldier (which he was not); this was denied
And so he was hanged by a taunting jeering mob as he prayed for the deliverance of Iraq from the Persians and their allies. And this was filmed on cell phone to give us the grisly reminder of the macabre horrorof an18 centaury execution. I have watched this with some sense of, loathing revulsion and disgust.
These last recorded moments of Saddams life as recorded on this cell phone are chilling and one feels a voyeur for looking at it.
If in his last moments Saddam showed contrition, or remorse or asked forgiveness we can never know ;only a knowing God can know and adjudicate. But what can one say of his executioners – if they believed in a hell need they have taunted and goaded him – he was in their urgings going there anyway but and if they believed in deliverance through a Devine mercy by any deity ; Allah ; God – any supreme being – how could they torment him even as the trapdoor opened.
Now consider the paradox that would surely have been if the British had captured Saddam and he immediately sought asylum in the UK because of his perceived fears of a trial culminating in the death sentence - a system which is not countenanced in the UK, I believe in these circumstances Saddam would have argued for such protection and have succeeded as did Pinochet.
The problem is that now are exposed the fault lines between the allies in the ethics of warfare and its sequellae. There is already an evidential wish for the British to distance themselves from what was a dark, brutal, gruesome and unseeingly hasty execution.
A new hatred between Arab cultures has been fomented by the invasion of Iraq – that between Sunni and Sheite ; it has been exacerbated by this trial and execution to an untold degree.
As the Bush administration seek to justify a new surge of troops in a country already in a state of civil war, where the Houses on record at least should oppose such a venture Bush seems destined to sink to depths of unpopularity not even known to Nixon.
Post a Comment