Ovi Magazine : "Desperate Song" by Jan Sand

Newsletter

Contact

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

BBC News : -

"Desperate Song"
by Jan Sand
2008-12-13 09:35:12

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Who will act for mankind?

Not me, not me.
For time's not kind,
And I'm not free.
I've sat so long to watch the will
Of anger and destruction
Smash good sense into disruption.
My hand's not firm,
My mind's not sure.
I cannot know
What will endure.
Do not look to me, not me.
For time's not kind
And I'm not free.
I've looked long years
To see the truth
That might make clear
What from my youth
Led to mere complexity
And complete perplexity.
Do not look to me, not me.
For time's not kind.
I've lost my mind
and I'm not free.
But mankind's not
What it should be.
So, if not me, then who?
Then who?

Poetry

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author


Comments(70)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
(comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-13 12:30:19
I have lived on the lip of insanity, Wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens, I've been knocking from the inside. --Rumi


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-13 15:19:54
Compensation For each extatic instant We must an anguish pay In keen and quivering ratio To the ecstasy. For each beloved hour Sharp pittances of years, Bitter contested farthings And coffers heaped with tears. --Emily Dickinson


Sand	2008-12-13 15:39:07
It's healthy for you to dig fast and furious into poetry for some reason or other, Paparella, but your mental illness needs more than poetry.


Chris	2008-12-13 17:31:45
Reminds me of that poem about the guy who watched Nazi Germany eterminate everyone but him, one group to the next, then found that he was next in line -- not me, not my problem. Leonord used to say: I told you, I told you, I was one of those.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-13 21:44:20
Did not the totalitarians of the Soviet Union also declare those who disagreed with them mentally ill and send them to insane asylums? Indeed, birds of a feather usually flock together.


Sand	2008-12-13 21:59:12
And goodness knows how many religious fanatics tortured and burned witches and people who had unusual ideas.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 00:08:34
But of course the only ones who will be mentioned are the religious fanatics while the anti-religion fanatics and bigots are the most sane of people, yes? You really ought to pick up Dostoyevsky's The Possessed, that book too, by the way was burned by the Nazi fanatics who began with books and ended up burning people.


AP	2008-12-14 01:42:45
Remember those pictures I sent with Hitler celebrating Christmas, shaking hands with bishops who would do the appropriate salutation, signing agreements with them, etc? They shared at least two things with the church: antisemitism and anti-communism. Here is the third one: "However [and in spite of having sent some priests to concentration camps in Poland and being jealous of the international influence of the Catholic Church], the Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich while in other cases, they replaced Christian symbols with those of the Third Reich. The völkisch movement was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations (such as the German Freethinkers League) and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have… undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” ...... Still, who burned the Botticellis and expelled the de Medicis, who destroyed some Michelangelos when they did not conform to the morality, who censored Caravaggio's extraordinary St Matthew amputating his art, who chased Cervantes and pressured Velázquez - the Nazis or the Church?


AP	2008-12-14 02:06:35
Note - I mention the antisemitism in the History of the Catholic Church (for centuries), so I don't necessarily refer to the official positions of the Church about Jews at the time of the WWII. Those centuries include the thousands of people burned, imprisoned and tortured, sometimes Jews, some others inconvenient people only under the false accusation of being Jews. Other times just "witches" under accusations as extraordinary as "transforming themselves into a kettle at night and meet in the woods to perform their spells". Anything could be an excuse to burn you and combust your soul. Mussolini didn't like the Church but also chose to work with it.


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-14 02:33:25
Oh yeas, and since you do regard yourself as being a 'witch with computer' you may freely talk about it ... after you swallow your good portion of dictionary for the night, huh?


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-14 02:36:12
P.S. I am not a great fan of rhymes and therefore this kind of poetry but this particular peace is rather impressive or so I have found


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-14 02:47:26
To Ms. A.P. I believe I have already told you that your religion bashing smacks of your closeted Marxis's and Fathers of Fascism's affiliations. I simply wonder when you'll stop pretending of being cute?


AP	2008-12-14 03:12:02
To Mr. AM: I understand you would like to know more about me, but my kettle condition does not allow me to reveal, so you'll have to stick to my cute steam, and stop pretending Marxists and Fascists squeezed inside closets (why this obsession with closets? it's almost as fascinating as the one with cantinas...). That description of "laptop witch" came ironically, and is not connected with this discussion of the burned witches in particular (I don't intend to be burned) nor anti-catholicism, but with "ancient" discussions and accusations uttered by Mr. P.


AP	2008-12-14 03:24:36
ps - I'll stop pretending to be cute when you stop pretending(?) to be a jerk. Oh, sorry, that was for real.


AP	2008-12-14 03:34:32
There goes the Best Chauvinist Actor Award...


AP	2008-12-14 03:36:49
ps2 - If you found the poetry impressive that's rather ironic :)


AP	2008-12-14 03:40:29
... and demonstrates why you're not a fan of rhymes: you can't interpret them (with or without dictionary).


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-14 04:42:00
To Ms. A.P. WoW! That was a particularly big splash of verbal diarhea from your part! Whoever pays you for your writing shall be proud for you - money are not entirely wasted !


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-14 04:46:03
and demonstrates why you're not a fan of rhymes: you can't interpret them (with or without dictionary' Total bullshit!


Jack	2008-12-14 05:32:40
It sounds like it could have been written by the Jews during the Holocaust, but also other minorities, Gypsies, the invalid, disabled, ethinic groups, or even from...... The political, business, and social establishments of Nazi Germany, or even other socialist/dictatorships/totalitarianists, etc. It was often certain death to resist. I see this not as anti-religous, but more of human societies being a victim of the circumstances; perhaps in a particular society/nation these very words have been uttered.


Sand	2008-12-14 07:55:37
It's amazing and disturbing to me that these few words I wrote on the despair of the individual over the sense of fear and hopelessness one feels over the human situation should evoke such dissension.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 15:28:24
In the deepest part of Dante’s hell, in a dark cave there is one of the most horrific scenes of that imaginative realm (see Inferno XXVIII): there Dante and Virgil meet a decapitated gigantic man holding his own head as if it were a lantern, as a way of “doing light unto himself.” He has come to be known as “the lantern man” but his real name is Bertrand del Born and the intriguing thing about him is that the man was a poet. But what kind of poet? Certainly not one who used words to promote dialogue and to build bridges of understanding. In fact he is in that particular circle of hell with other disseminators of discord. He used poetry to rationalize what ought never be rationalized; to promote a world wholly closed upon itself, not able to see much further than material empirical reality. Here we have poetry, that most spiritual mode of using language, that instead of being a sign or an intimation of things spiritual and unseen, that is to say of the transcendent, is wholly immanent and narcissistically focused upon itself ending up with the promotion of discord and diatribes; that is to say, this is the kind of poetry that does light unto itself, it glories in nihilism and writes songs of desperation glorifying and celebrating its own nihilism snd despair, but has no conception of the point of it all within the mystery of existence and Being; consequently it remains trapped in a dark cave doing light unto itself and pretending to be upset when in reality it is enjoying all that discord. The tragedy of course is that in such a realm there is no possibility of repentance and reparation and redemption. Rumi and Dickinson knew better. That is why they, like Dante, are great poets.


AP	2008-12-14 15:36:04
Mr. Mikhaylov, If you don't like what is written in my profile (and which has absolutely nothing to do with this), that's a pity, but I won't change it because of you. You can scream and shout, accuse me of "cute" as many times as you want (funny accusation though), but you don't have a word to say about that. Just as I don't mess with the fact that you were a circus attendant or still have a night guard side. You were a political refugee and I respect that. But it is far from giving you the right to go around spreading "Marxist in disguise" and "Fascist" accusations between references to closets and cantinas - just because I tend to show another side of the actions of the Church representatives that Mr. P. hardly admits. I know it's hard for you to face it, but that doesn't mean religion bashing either because I respect the freedom of choosing a religion, and have catholic, jewish, lutheran, buddhist, baptist, hindu, muslim and candomble friends. My grandparents and many of my neighbours identify themselves as being catholics. Just as I respect the freedom of choosing a religion, I respect the freedom not to choose one, which doesn't seem to be the case with you and Mr. P.


AP	2008-12-14 15:42:25
Mr. P., it seems that now you have a more challenging, even gigantic, task ahead: you want to censor poetry... based on Dante.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 15:46:12
It appears that the visiting voices of Mr.S. have been visiting you also. Is that what they say I said? Don't believe them, they are slanderers and liars. What I have in fact written about, repeatedly, is that without freedom there is no genuine religion, only a fanatical cult. If you perceive Catholicism as a cult of sort, then you are doing the right thing in staying away from it and not use it as a crutch. On the other hand, you may be misguided about that and your prejudice, which comes out loud and clear, about the Catholic Churhc may be based on a lot of ignorance and cherry picking that feed it. Just a thought which I predict will now be contradicted with a few silly cliches and cherries with a dash of Mr. S.'s chocholate cake.


AP	2008-12-14 16:08:36
It seems that your freedom doesn't include the acceptance of the freedom to be an atheist - so where's the radicalism here? Do you have friends who are atheists, Mr. P. - and how well do you know them? Your insinuations about voices and bashings are ungrounded and repetitive. Who is a great poet or not is very subjective and depends of many arbitrary things. For example, Shakespeare was great but Mr. AM doesn't have much consideration for him because of his... rhymes. And if that serves as any form of consolation... you'll never be a great philosopher either. I mean, recognized as such.


AP	2008-12-14 16:22:52
Dante used rhymes as well. Still it's not so much the poetry that you enjoy, but the fact that he studied Philosophy in Catholic schools and was involved with academic disputes between dominicans and mysticists.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 16:24:20
Regarding witches and witchcraft, of which you seem to know a thing or two, Ms. P., of course it is contemptible and reprehensible that human being, whatever their beliefs or not belief, should be burned, in order to save their soul, as the misguided argument goes. Whoever promoted that, even if he were a Pope, is certainly not a Christian and is engaged in an abuse of religion. Dante puts three Popes in hell suggesting that God’s justice applies to them too. That having been said, let me put another thought in your mind. I can only hope that it will not be twisted and turned around as has been previously been done, but here it is in any case: formerly in so called “dark ages” it was said that some people, such as witches, needed to be burned so that they could be saved. Nowadays, in our over-sophisticated, cutting edge, “enlightened” times that believes in nothing unless it is material and empirical, and tends to ignores spiritual realities, we say we are only the sum our material parts and when we die (your bird of a feather Mr. S. does not call it death but becoming inoperative…) we are worth only $ 1 of chemical components and therefore let’s put them to good use it as fertilizer to be sold on the market. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 16:24:49
Eventually we will use to skin the way the Nazis did, to make artistic lampshades with. As we speak, that is exactly what is being promoted in one of the most “civilized” nations of the Western world, the nation that gave us Rembrandt. Chew on that for a while, together with Mr. S.’s chocolate cake, and see what clichés and fallacious intellectual inanities you may be able to regurgitate as a response. I have no doubt you will find a few. Go for it. By the way, that mind-set is prophesized in both Dante’s lantern man and in Dostoyevisky’s The Possessed. I know you have already declared that you don’t read books, but hopefully you will desist from burning them. Even Bush read a few, albeit not from cover to cover…


AP	2008-12-14 16:40:22
Sure I did say that - whatever your upset mind tells you. It's amazing, your talent to discard answers even before they are written. I see that Bush is getting at least your commiseration.


Sand	2008-12-14 17:02:46
I wonder how Dante became elevated above God in deciding who does or does not end up in Hell. Paparella is so enchanted with Dante that he has assigned him the role of God in judgment. I suppose a poet cannot be awarded a higher station but I doubt Paparella has the power to assign it.


AP	2008-12-14 17:15:45
Do you have friends who are atheists, Mr. P., or you can't get along with such people?


AP	2008-12-14 17:25:35
Your arguments are ridiculous. What if the Nazis would say: oh no, but the guards of the concentration camps or Hitler - those were not true Nazis!! True Nazis are much more tolerant than that! The same, you say, is true about Inquisitors - they were not "true Catholics". How about a Pope who forbids condoms, giving a death sentence to true devotees? - is he a true Catholic, Mr. P.?


AP	2008-12-14 17:41:12
If you represent and know what true Catholics think, we should know your positions better: - We know that you are against the free choice by women when it comes to the topic of abortion and against euthanasia independently of the circumstances - what is your position on the use of condoms? - are Sand's chocolate cakes an "appetite sin" for you? - where do you think you'll go when you die and what do you do while living this life to try to deserve it? - have you had transcendental or mystical experiences? - how would you personally feel if you had no religion? - how do you relate with atheists in your life? are there any?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 17:46:06
Are you sure you are a true atheist Ms.P. You ought to get out of the nefarious habit of putting words never uttered in the mouth of people you disagree with. It takes away any credibility you may have with your audience. Since the name of Dante has been mentioned repeatedly and in vain, I would hope that at the very least, you'd agree that the poetry is superb despite your agreement or disagreement with the content, or you may end up looking not only as a slnderer but as a cultural philistine too. On the content, hell is there to make a point of human freedom. People choose theie own kind of hell and it begins right here on earth. As already mentioned, to be condemned to heaven means that we are all automatons and have no free will. That is what some philistines say nowadays and therefore don't get too excited about the enormities committed in the 20th century which makes those of past centuries look like a picnic in comparison. Pity.


Sand	2008-12-14 18:03:27
Whatever the literary quality of Dante I wonder how his decisions to place people in Hell are taken as gospel truth without any doubts.


Sand	2008-12-14 18:08:13
It also impresses me as quite strange that Catholics are permitted a fling at torture and burning up people because the Nazis did it in larger quantities. Where did that odd morality originate?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 18:42:42
Hee we go again, as if to confirm my point, once again, words are simply and gratuitously placed in people mouth. I am wondering too where did that kind of ethical behavior originate? It appears that those who don't believe in an after life are much more liberal with that kind of reprehensible ethical stratagem. After all, if I don't get caught by the police, who is there to judge me? Nobody but one's shadow, which of course knows, but one can self-deceive oneself to the point that even one's shadow is denied with a mask and a false identity, if identity is even recongnized any longer. O tempora, or mores.


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-14 18:51:50
To Ms. P I propose to end this ridiculous feud between us What would you say?


Sand	2008-12-14 19:03:01
Your words, Mr P. "don't get too excited about the enormities committed in the 20th century which makes those of past centuries look like a picnic in comparison. Pity." Would you enjoy a picnic, perhaps gulp down a boiled egg sandwich, while you watched Joan of Arc burn or slaver over the odor of grilled flesh of Giordano Bruno when he was burned at the stake as ordered by the pope? Some picnic!


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 19:21:53
It is intriguing to me how both birds of a feather in this forum who have taken to using we rather than I, resolve all issue descending to the personal. Do you have any atheist friends? Somehow, the way I answer that question will settle the issue in their mind. The same dubious intellectual tactic was used in the debate on abortion. Everything is reduced to relativism, relative that is to one’s convenience and personal ideology and point of view. The moral imperative is completely ignored, if even known. And that is called “enlightenment” and modernity. In truth, it is ethical regression of the worst kind.


Sand	2008-12-14 19:27:42
Cite where, in this discussion, I have used "we" rather than "I". Your absolute lies are so easily confronted, Paparella. Why do you bother?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 19:27:54
Here we go again, if we needed confirmation: one takes a statement and choose what is convenient, selectively, cherry picking and distorting the meaning. Even a sentence is not immune from that scurrillous intellectual stratagem. Here is the whole sentence as I wrote it: "As already mentioned, to be condemned to heaven means that we are all automatons and have no free will. That is what some philistines say nowadays and therefore don't get too excited about the enormities committed in the 20th century which makes those of past centuries look like a picnic in comparison. Pity."


Sand	2008-12-14 19:30:12
Your statement, not mine, Mr.P.. Are you totally out of your mind?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 21:03:51
When you attended the Pratt School of Industrial Design did they teach you anything about the dishonesty of taking statements out of context in order to distort them? Obviously not, or you were not paying much attention.


Sand	2008-12-14 21:21:15
You presented the quote, not me. I didn't take any statements out of context. Must you post when you are obviously confused by some sort of medication?


AP	2008-12-14 21:38:50
"Do you have any atheist friends?" - you still didn't answer that, Mr. P. To AM: Of course, why not? I wasn't the one starting it, was I?


AP	2008-12-14 21:45:24
Another thing we, READERS, still don't know is your position on the use of condoms - tolerance or condemnation? Two very simple, straightforward, questions. The third one I'm curious about is: have you ever had transcendental or mystical experiences? I'm writing very honestly and in an unprejudiced manner. Can you answer straight, or not really?


AP	2008-12-14 22:06:57
I ask because the fact that some people can be atheists seems intolerable for you - and you tend to blame them for Nazism and Communism, which demonstrates that your position before them is similar to the one shown by individuals from the Old World who had never seen black people. I had no problem in answering that: I'm not anti-abortion, I'm not against euthanasia, I'm not against condoms and I do have friends who profess different religions. The key to our understanding is mutual tolerance, and being bonded by things other than religion. Though I've had good moments, I've never really had mystical/religious experiences. Have you? I don't feel bad for not having a religion, nor do I feel I need one, though several people tried to introduce me to several. None seemed satisfying and, in general, I felt like an anthropologist doing my field research. Not my fault, I think.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 22:27:11
Sand 2008-12-14 21:21:15 You presented the quote, not me. I didn't take any statements out of context. Must you post when you are obviously confused by some sort of medication? Which medication did the voices alledge? I presented a complete sentence which when taken out of context and truncated (as you most definitely did: see above)changes its meaning and intent. You have repeatedly used this stratagem in this forum which makes me believe that you may not even know what is and what is not intellectually honest.


AP	2008-12-14 22:34:52
I was raised in a Catholic environment, went to the church enough times, and had to have "Moral and Catholic Religion" classes in the public school until I was nine - after that my parents could choose and they decided that neither I nor my brothers deserved such punishment. :) Even at an early age, it was obvious for me that those classes were very insufficient in answering my fundamental questions - the priest would preach and we would draw. Many years later that same priest who tried to infuse us all with the word of the Lord and His kindness had a mystical crisis and tried to kill himself by cutting his whole body with shaving blades. A sad story. But the Lord doesn't seem to have been kind enough with him.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 22:42:11
Having missed the point once again or perhaps having understood it but opted for ignoring it, Ms. P., you (now representing the readers of the magazine, who certainly have not appointed you nor Mr. S. Grand Inquisitors in charge of Political Correctness in this forum which remains a forum of opinion) continue to ask urgent personal questions and demand urgent answers threatening escomunication from the Club of political correctness) as if those answers will settle the issue. I doubt it. It is exactly that kind of ad hominem arguing on your part and to which you'd like to reduce everything, which will never allow for the unbiased objectivity that a moral issue requires, whatever that issue may be. You and your "enlightened" birds of a feather may think of yourselves as part of the solution of a society without a moral compass, but truly you are very much part of the problem, I am afraid.


AP	2008-12-14 22:50:08
Mr. P., If there is something which doesn't worry me, that's political correctness. I don't think I'm part of the solution of anything - but I don't think I'm part of the problem either. "unbiased objectivity that a moral issue requires" mnorality is translated into opinions and actions, and those interest me.


AP	2008-12-14 22:53:19
errata - morality The congruence, or lack of it, between the theories and the opinions/actions of a moral being is extremely interesting to me.


AP	2008-12-14 23:02:38
Consistency and flexibility are both extremely important in this life. The fact that you refuse to reveal honestly your positions on those subjects, and also the fact that you feel the need to immediately link atheists with communists (and declare atheists "part of the problem of this world") are both very intriguing. You know, my father was an atheist and he spent his whole life being labeled "a communist" by ignorant people, most of them related to the Catholic church... who remind me of you. He used to abominate the manipulation of the ignorance of the masses by fellows preoccupied with warning them against fake "dangers". Now he's not in heaven nor hell, but some feet under the ground, and it seems that his curse as passed on to me (?).


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 23:06:46
This may surprise you Ms. P. but without descending to the personal and the ad hominem, I’ll say this much knowing full well that it may be twisted: unlike religion bashers in general posing urgent questions to determine the non-orthodoxy of others (i.e., if they are atheistic enough…), those who are genuinely religious always respect the freedom that is required by any religion worthy of that name; the freedom to believe or not to believe in a Creator, to accept and practice or not to accept and practice a religion. As I have repeatedly said before, to deaf ears it would appear, if that freedom is lacking one is dealing with a cult, not a religion. If you perceive Catholicism as a cult of sort taking away your freedom, which you obviously do judging by your anecdotes from your youth, then you have done the right thing in renouncing it. It is indeed too bad that Catholicism was presented to you that way, for God is not a support system: an aspirin which you take when you have a headache or a crutch that helps you to walk when you have hurt your leg. That is using God, not a personal relationship and in that case, it is indeed by far preferable to have no relationship at all and believe in nothing but one’s material idols because going to church even every day will not do the trick, it may just mean that one is an hypocrite, as Christ aptly pointed out to the Pharisees taking first seats in the synagogue.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-14 23:16:47
You are doing it again: placing words and statements in my mouth. Are you aware of doing it or is it so habitual that you are not aware of it? As far as fully revealing my position on any issues, you need to re-read my contribution and you will notice that I do not proceed by stealth, to the contrary, my position is so clearly stated that it invited immediate and sometimes vicious verbal attacks by those who disagree with it. Take the issue of abortion which turned into a ridiculous diatribe complete with personal insults right from the beginning. So you need to consider the Junghian notion of projection befor proffering you gratuitous accusations.


AP	2008-12-14 23:27:38
I didn't pose questions to determine your orthodoxy, but to get answers - as you are not clear enough nor open enough about your positions. How can that insult you? "nothing but one’s material idols" I don't have material idols either, and I can bet with you that you have many more material possessions than I have.


AP	2008-12-14 23:38:18
You're part of the 2.1 billion Christians in this world, and that's certainly more orthodox and politically correct than being an atheist. I don't defend ideas nor opinions due to their orthodoxy - generally I trust my own deep feelings and thoughts about the subjects.


Alexander Mikhaylov	2008-12-15 00:12:50
All right, I promise not to write any more snapping remarks to you anymore. Let's keep it civil


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-15 00:34:14
If you still don't understand my position after more than one hundred contributions to this magazine, there is little I can add to make it clear for you. It probably it is not a matter of understanding...The word under-stand is composed of two terms, and to insist on standing over as the "enlightened" one means that ultimately one will never under-stand... Indeed, some find the truth offensive, but it is the only way out of the cave of self-deceptions; the only thing that will lead one out of that dark cave and make one free. People like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Maritain, all adamant ex-atheists who eventually went sincerely looking for the truth and found it, may be helpful in that regard, never mind Dr. Paparella and his personal life for which I will have to render a full account eventually, but not to those who show little respect for the truth.


AP	2008-12-15 01:13:59
And with all these entertaining sentences you... managed not to answer again. "sincerely looking for the truth and found it" This says that you consider, from the start, that the truth is on your side. Full stop. At least I am open to discuss it, you don't even bother. I don't intend to prove anything with my questions, I am genuinely interested in knowing your positions and what's the practical end of those theories. I am curious, nothing more and nothing less than that. After you state your positions clearly, we can start discussing the whys, if you start from the whys and never get anywhere, then it's useless to discuss.


AP	2008-12-15 01:20:08
I am interested in knowing how you conciliate your opinions about the atheists being Nazis and communists with your everyday life. Do you relate with any, do you discuss this with them? Also, do you find it humane to be against the use of condoms in our days? How and why? I don't mock of people who had mystical experiences either - I am mainly curious about the topic and like to know more about it. Was something like that the origin of your faith? Or something else?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-15 16:02:47
The 116 or so articles I have contributed to Ovi are quite lucid and speak for themselves. If you have been unable so far to gather what my personal ethical position is on the various issues they address, and all that you can come up with is that I am an ignoramus to be placed alongside the ones (in the Catholic Church, of course) who unjustly accused your father of being a Communist, then I fail to see how dragging the discussion into the personal will in any way clarify those articles and my position for you or for any of the readers who find them confusing but keep on reading them so that they can attack them. It most definitely will, not. What it will do is simply provide you and your birds of a feather, especially Mr. S., with more ammunition for reprehensible argumenti ad hominem, something that he has practiced from the very beginning of my contributions. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-15 16:06:51
Let me be more specific, the very first article I contributed to Ovi approximately a year and a half ago was on Emmanuel Levinas and, as the editor revealed to me, it was the most widely read article in Ovi that month. That hardly suggests that the article was confusing and unreadable and a piece of garbage, which is exactly the criticism Mr. S. lost no time in leveling against it and continued to level against any and all my contributions, always done in an intellectually devious mode, so egregious in fact that I have had no choice but expose it publicly for what it was, an egregious and scurrilous personal attack at the service of the axe against religion and the Catholic Church in particular which I suspect he has been grinding all his life and has become a pathological obsession with him. I was forced to descend to the personal to simply protect my personal integrity and professional reputation and let him taste some of his own medicine and make him understand that he just cannot get away with slander and aspersions and dubious intellectual tactics such as placing words in people's mouth, which he seems to find normal, all in the name of free speech. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-15 16:07:20
For a while he left the magazine in indignation because I was allowed to continue contributing, as he explained on another site. He returned to continue true to form and he is still at it. Unfortunately you decided to join him in that villainous mode of dialoguing and conducting an intellectual discussion and now urgently insist that I answer a list of personal questions to clarify my position, after 116 articles, which you still find confusing, not clear and written by an ignorant. I mention all this to make clear that I have nothing against a dialogue conducted in good faith and aiming at the search for truth. I am afraid that neither Mr. S.’s nor your mode of arguing has shown much good faith, as of now. Therefore I will not answer your tongue in cheek questions on my personal faith journey. They do not even warrant the benefit of a doubt.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-15 16:27:00
P.S. I predict that, that as has happened before, I will now be accused of dodging important crucial questions from the Inquisitors in charge of political correctness. So let me repeat once more my general position on atheism and atheists. I have said it before actually, I have had a few atheists friends but they were at the level of a Santayana who while remaining an atheist was objective and honest enough to realize that to cast aspersion on the enormous contribution of the Catholic Church is not to understand what Europe is all about. I could conduct a dialogue with a Santayana any time while I cannot talk to bigots, whether they believe in God or not. Moreover, I have also said and I repeat it: atheism is not an impediment to living an ethical and rational life, as a Santayana certainly proved as long as one remains honest with oneself and follows the natural law, with or without a belief in a Creator. Atheism is a personal decision not to have a personal relationship with God and since even God respects the decision because he leaves his creatures free to determine their own destiny, then why should anybody else object to the exercise of that freedom. As Jung said, man is religious by nature, and if he throws God out the window because he cannot see Him/Her he will substitute Him/Her with something that can be seen and touched and worship It. It may turn out to be a car or an ideology. I believe the Bible says that the fool says in his heart that there is no God and then proceeds to worship the products of his hands or his mind (ideologies). It calls it idolatry.


Sand	2008-12-15 17:37:04
Paparella's persecution complex has risen to hilarious extremes when he perceives my leaving the magazine in disgust at his inflated nonsense as a move to influence the editors to censor him as if they were subject to my demands as to who should be accepted for publication. It seems I threaten him both by leaving and by remaining. It guess I have him cornered. It's a pleasant thought.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-12-15 19:04:27
Point confirmed Ms. P. The poor deluded fellow does not realize of course that he has cornered himself in the dark cave of rationalism devoid of the light of truth and intellectual honesty. Indeed we all choose a particular part of hell, even if it is here on earth. We don't need Dante to figure that one out. In India they call it karma.


Sand	2008-12-15 21:41:34
That's quite a bundle of vague meaningless terminology signifying, as usual, nothing but circuitous maundering.