The alleged Norwegian attacker

Started by Michael Slusser, July 23, 2011, 07:51:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PTMcCain


LutherMan

Quote from: Daniel L. Gard on July 24, 2011, 09:33:55 PM
In the LCMS we have "District Presidents" not "District Bishops".
Oh, I agree.  Just please don't tell Russ Sommerfeld and Larry Stoteereau that.    It could irritate them 'bishops'. ;)

Daniel L. Gard

Quote from: LutherMan on July 24, 2011, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Daniel L. Gard on July 24, 2011, 09:33:55 PM
In the LCMS we have "District Presidents" not "District Bishops".
Oh, I agree.  Just please don't tell Russ Sommerfeld and Larry Stoteereau that.    It could irritate them 'bishops'. ;)

Both are good and decent men who are fine Presidents.

LutherMan

Yep.  And both like to be referred to as bishop.  I know this firsthand.

George Erdner

#49
Quote from: Daniel L. Gard on July 24, 2011, 09:33:55 PM
The only "Bishops" in the Synod are those who exercise episcope at an altar and pulpit. District Presidents are elected for a term and fill only that humanly devised office because of a district vote. Dave Benke is a bishop - not by virtue of his office in the Atlantic District but by virture of the parish he serves as pastor. If I called him "bishop" I would have to call all 6000 parish pastors "bishop" and that would just get a little silly.

In the LCMS we have "District Presidents" not "District Bishops".

And you have pastors, not priests. Yet you have among the clergy of the LC-MS those who like to refer to themselves as "Father" or "Padre", or who style themselves "Fr. So-and-so" instead of "Pr. So-and-so". Is there any real harm in such personal affectations, especially if others are the ones who started the practice?

Don't you folks have bigger issues to worry about? Doesn't everybody?

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Dave Benke on July 24, 2011, 07:35:33 PM
I'd rather pick at what's meant by "multi-culturalism" and "anti-immigration."  A person is apparently ideologically so in favor of a mono-cultural approach, and in favor of closing boundaries to anyone from outside of his or her own country, that he picks up a gun and kills 100 people.  I live in the most pro-immigration city in the country, and in the most multi-cultural county in the world.  Even the numerically few here who bark about too many of "them" among us have to face the fact that "they" are productive in education, hold down jobs, and participate in American society prety much to the maximum.  What ideologically prevents that thought from occurring to our killer or to others who are anti-immigraiton or anti-multicultural? 

I'm reading that in Europe "multiculturalism" is not succeeding.  What is it there, and in what ways is it different or similar to what we find say in New York City?

Dave Benke
A nation like Norway is much more like a huge extended family. Nearly everyone shares the same history, the same religious roots (whether they accept or reject those roots, those roots are what is accepted or rejected) the same language. The problem as these people see it (and it is a problem everyone recognizes as such in their own way, though few would kill people randomly about it) is that Norway is becoming less Norwegian, and if Norway is not Norwegian, what will be? This killer can't point to a rationale for his actions other than anger and desperation that Norway, and thus the globe and all humanity, is losing its last vestige of Norweginity. The rage of this man is even greater against his own countrymen because this rejection of all things Norwegian is self-chosen; it is Norwegians deciding that it is no longer important for any corner of the world to be Norwegian. Norway should be the same as Paris should be the same as London should be the same as Brussels-- a melting pot of of foreigners among whom the local customs, history, language, religion etc. have no particular claim to pre-eminence.

Of course, it is tough to generate sympathy for people who can't even be bothered to have children at the replacement rate. It is Europe that is deciding that Europe is not worth perpetuating.

TravisW

In the case of this guy (Breivik), we aren't dealing with National Socialism or an equivalent to Christian Identity.  His beliefs, somewhat summarized, are that Islam has presented a risk to European civilization since its beginning, that Europe had turned back Islam's expansion for centuries, and that post WWII politics silenced nationalist voices in favor of "Marxist" policies that have allowed for relatively high levels of foreign immigration since the late 1960s.  Further, at least according to his manifesto, he doesn't have a big gripe with people of foreign origin who essentially completely conform to the culture.  He seems to believe that places like the U.S.A. can handle multiculturalism better because they are already based on a diverse population and because they aren't trying to maintain a social welfare system. 

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is a side note and something of a tool in his philosophy.  His ideal seems to be all European Christians rejoining the Roman Catholic Church, which can then in turn provide a greater buffer for Europeans against the immigration of Muslims.

PTMcCain

And so...his way of expressing his deep concern about encroaching Islam was to kill scores of non-Muslim Norwegians.

This proves that "the crazy" was the dominant aspect in his behavior.

Dave Benke

These comments are helping me at least a little.  Certainly the national and ethnic specificity of some of the European countries plays into the fear of the multi-cultural from what you've said.  This leads to the question of inappropriate racial mixing, what was called a generation back miscegenation.  So my assumption would be that the Nordic ultra-rightist isn't looking to have his kids marry somebody with say kinky hair and produce lots of "mixed breed" kids.  One of the rapid demographic developments in this country is multi-cultural/racial marriages.  Lots and lots of young adults pretty much don't make race a prime determinant in the choice of a spouse.  I suppose that's resented by those who do. 

As to speaking English, when that's put in the context of the Missouri Synod it always seems dangerously disingenuous, since it took us about four generations, or eighty years, more to make English our primary language than it does the average immigrant these days, and then pretty much at the point of a gun after the First World War.  For some Americans, somebody even having a second language is looked on as weird - the American version of English ONLY is the credo.  I heard a guy on the golf channel with the obligatory southern accent poking fun at golfers from England for their crazy way of talking -"why," he opined, "can't they speak English!"  The LPGA fired its past exec for making a dictum that all players in America had to speak sufficient English for a press conference or default the tournament.  This of course after the Korean women started winning all the tournaments.  I wrote to the Times and said, "That is a great idea.  All the Asian golfers need to take ESL.  And as part of the deal, all the Americans need to go to Korea to learn how to play golf." 

Dave Benke
It's OK to Pray

peter_speckhard

#54
Why does France (and Quebec) forbid the use of common slang terms that derive from English? It is crazy to have language police telling people they can't talk about "facebook" in the media but have to use a French equivalent instead. But it is the kind of craziness that sees a threat to an historic identity. It is reactionary, defensive, and totalitarian, but it makes sense to the French that they'd rather be those things than be Americanized.

This kook killed Norwegians because they were, in his mind, worse than Muslims; they were traitors to Norway who were masterminding the extinction of all things Norwegian. I've heard there is an official list of names you can give to your baby in some countries. It came up because Beorn Borg would not have been allowed to name his son Beorn, since that is a word that means "bear" and not a "name" per se. Native Americans have all kinds of policies to try to keep their culture alive. So do many cultures.

But I'll say again-- the best way to say "yes" to your culture or sub-culture and to life in general is to have a child. Europeans find that difficult to do. Mohammed has been the most popular name for boys born in London for some time now. But if the English can't be bothered to beget Thomases, Richards, and Harolds, then what the hell did they think was going to happen?

James_Gale

Quote from: Charles_Austin on July 24, 2011, 08:41:06 PM
I lived in Europe for four months last summer. (Wish I were there again this summer.  ;D ) The difference is that many countries in Europe are still rather new to the "multi-cultural" or "melting pot" or even with the idea of people who are not Swiss or Dutch or Belgian or French living in their cities, let along dominating neighborhoods and whole towns.


"Multi-culturalism" involves maintaining, and even celebrating, the cultural differences of peoples who live within the same country.  The "melting pot" incorporates people from different cultures into one nation, to some extent blurring the cultural differences between ethnic groups.  Given US history, it is relatively easy (emphasis on "relatively") for the US to strike the right balance between celebrating and blurring cultural differences.  That process is much more difficult in Europe, where the melting pot (and cultural assimilation) are not part of national identity.  Prominent leaders in many European countries have declared multi-culturalism to be a failure there precisely because they think that it has inhibited the "melting" needed to facilitate national unity.

PTMcCain

#56
This topic has taken an interesting turn in direction, as usual.

A few observations....

Keep in mind that German was the language in our LCMS churches, but English was learned, quite quickly, in order to survive in American culture. Walther himself learned English, and both read and wrote in English and spoke it, heavily accented of course.

I think we have some popular mythologies going on here.

In rural isolated communities the German immigrants were able to carry on longer in German-only context, but even in the rural areas, English had to be learned.

It's been my observation that those of a certain age in The LCMS were raised in predominantly heavily racist and prejudiced German homes, in LCMS closed-loop social structures and tend to assume everyone younger than them have experienced the same thing or have had to work through the same sorts of racial issues they had to as they became aware there was more beyond their German-Lutheran cultural ghettos. People my age and younger did not have these same experiences.

pr dtp

Quote from: Daniel L. Gard on July 24, 2011, 07:48:50 PM
President Benke,

I'll bet our California friends might contest your claim to the most "pro-immigration city in the country, and in the most multi-cultural county in the world." But I will stay out of that one! Here in the mid-west, everyone looks the same and they are all Lutheran.

The County I live in has 230 plus languages spoken in his schools. Heck - in my church we have people with 18 different native languages. 

Even someone who grew up speaking German.. (but only one! )

Course - being from Boston I am well familiar with the New York tendency to wannabe....   matter of fact only Texas, the B1G and Notre Dame have a greater tendency to such manifestations of ego...    ;D ;D :D :D

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: PTMcCain on July 24, 2011, 11:29:18 PM
Keep in mind that German was the language in our LCMS churches, but English was learned, quite quickly, in order to survive in American culture.


Some did. Some didn't. My mother-in-law (born in America) didn't learn English at home, but when she started kindergarten. Her mother never did learn English.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

pr dtp

Quote from: James_Gale on July 24, 2011, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: Charles_Austin on July 24, 2011, 08:41:06 PM
I lived in Europe for four months last summer. (Wish I were there again this summer.  ;D ) The difference is that many countries in Europe are still rather new to the "multi-cultural" or "melting pot" or even with the idea of people who are not Swiss or Dutch or Belgian or French living in their cities, let along dominating neighborhoods and whole towns.


"Multi-culturalism" involves maintaining, and even celebrating, the cultural differences of peoples who live within the same country.  The "melting pot" incorporates people from different cultures into one nation, to some extent blurring the cultural differences between ethnic groups.  Given US history, it is relatively easy (emphasis on "relatively") for the US to strike the right balance between celebrating and blurring cultural differences.  That process is much more difficult in Europe, where the melting pot (and cultural assimilation) are not part of national identity.  Prominent leaders in many European countries have declared multi-culturalism to be a failure there precisely because they think that it has inhibited the "melting" needed to facilitate national unity.

I grew up on the east coast - and the cities there still have their ethnic neighborhoods.  ( I can count on good Italian food in Boston's North End, and a Pub in SouthE and some incredible Caribbean food in Roxbury.   So does Los Angeles and Orange County (on the freeways you will see signs for Koreatown, Little Saigon, Little Ethiopia, Little Italy, etc.)  You want good salsa - Santa Ana for Baja, and East LA for central american feasts (subdivided into Honduran, El Savadoran etc.   My area has basically four different Asian communities, and there are two growing Coptic neighborhoods within 5 miles.

We aren't as much a melting pot, as a nice rich stew...

The feasts are phenomenal btw....

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk