Around this time of year a lot of Christians are likely rewatching Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" film. It's a good film in many ways and I believe it is a useful tool in helping the faithful to understand the extent to which Christ suffered for us.
That said, we need to not have tunnel vision today. Christ's suffering was important. It showed his inner and outer strength as that he endured all this when he could have but called upon legions of angels to save him. Instead the night before he asked God that if it be possible, he be spared, but rather he asked that God's will be done.
The real story this week is the resurrection, which cannot happen of course without Christ's death. While we can glean much from the suffering of Christ on this day, we can take heart in knowing the purpose behind it. Just so we should strive to serve God's will and not our own, and offer up our suffering along the way.
I'd like to go into this more but there just isn't time. Have a great Good Friday, Holy Saturday and of course, have a blessed Easter Sunday.
First comes this: Matthew 27:50-53
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
But then comes this:
The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
Amen
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Ending of Lent, start of the Triduum, Joy to All Nations and a note on future blogging
And so today (tonight rather) marks the end of the season of Lent.
Throughout the last 40 (ok 46) days Catholics and other Christians have taken various steps to attempt to come closer to God. In an emulation of Christ's 40 days fasting in the desert where he was tempted by Satan, we've all been called to give something up, or as the case may be to do more.
I for one chose to give up blogging except on Fridays and to endeavor to read the whole Bible. I give myself a D+. I did ok on the blog front though not perfect and I got through Numbers before skipping to the New Testament since I want to finish my reading with the same narrative I'll hear at mass Sunday.
Kelli limited her soda intake, one guy I read about consumed nothing but beer without getting drunk, others went on pilgrimages etc.
But now our time in the desert is over. Last Sunday we celebrated Christ's triumphant entrance into Jerusalem with the waving of palms and shouts of Hosanna.
Following Holy Monday (I don't really know what happens then), Holy Tuesday (when many dioceses celebrate the Chrism mass) and Holy Wednesday (traditionally the day Judas conspired with the Sanhedrin) -- we finally come to Holy Thursday which begins the Triduum.
The Triduum is the three days from Holy Thursday to Easter (keep in mind "days" in this context is evening to morning.)
During these days we consider within the context of real time what Christ went through for us. Beginning Palm Sunday we experience the joy of an exultant Christ, we then experience the betrayal of Judas and then the same crowds that had chanted "Hosanna." On Good Friday we recall his Passion and death. Saturday, until the vigil, we recall the loss, fear and even perhaps doubt felt by those who followed Christ at the time, tempered by the knowledge we have of what comes next.
Sorry for that long winded bit but it all leads to this.
Easter.
Some biblical scholars say it was probably April 5, 33 AD when Christ raised from the dead. His friends and family found only an empty tomb with an angel asking why do you look among the dead for one who is alive?
I know that Matt and Dungy are the main readers of this blog and so likely no one who cares about this sort of thing will read it, but I'm celebrating here so deal with it.
Prior to that day, before his death and resurrection, heaven was a theory. Sure it was there, but how could such sin-stained a people as us get in? We couldn't until God himself proclaimed great joy to the nations and came as a man, died as a man and then kicked death square in the jibblies.
The Bible says he was like us in all ways but sin. He laughed, he cried. He probably buried his father, he almost certainly worked for a time as a carpenter. He was, hungry, tired, hot, cold and thirsty.
Think about that kids, GOD HIMSELF, was hungry and thirsty. It's almost inconceivable.
The only thing crazier than humbling himself as a man would be what came next. First he taught, then he suffered greatly, was executed by his own people, and even after all that, saved us from certain death by defeating death itself.
Pardon my lack of explaining the theology here, I'm just excited it's Easter. We bummed the word, the eggs and the bunny from the pagans but that's not relevant to me. What happened and why we celebrate are what matter.
One thing I've heard an atheist (or maybe it was a pagan I really can't recall) say is this:
"How can a Christian believe something so crazy as that a God would become one of us, be beaten, humiliated and killed just to rise from the dead to save a people that throughout their own scripture are constantly sinning?" -- I paraphrased of course.
And they're right. It sounds nuts. But that's my God. He is the God of Abraham and Moses. He is the God of Noah and Solomon. He is the God of Peter and Paul, Father Nick and Father Don. So great is his love for us that to our weak ways it seems crazy.
Well I just want to say I'm happily insane then. I believe it all the way.
-----------
The existence of something doesn't prove a divine will for it to exist, but I heard something else the other day I wanted to share.
I was listening to a Catholic radio station down here in Lexington, and the host was talking about the recently passed six-year anniversary of Cardinal Ratzinger's election to the papacy as Benedict XVI. He recalled watching the election coverage on TV when a camera caught a high ranking US Cardinal looking intense and very introspective.
When that cardinal came back to the states, a journalist asked him what he was thinking at that moment and here is a paraphrase of what he said.
At that moment he said he was looking out across the square of St. Peter with millions of people chanting and crying. He saw hundreds of cameras beaming the events to billions more. He then looked over toward one of Rome's hills with ruins visible and thought that right then, from the seat of a city who's emperors once ruled the known world, a man was being given a fisherman's ring.
He said he thought about the glory and splendor of Caesar and other Roman rulers and thought, "Where are your successors?" They are gone and dead and while the influence remains, they're just another part of history. But the successor of a fisherman that followed a carpenter was now commanding all this. After 2,000 years we're still going strong.
I just thought that was a nice thought.
---------------
Ok so with Lent over I'm going to get back to blogging a little more often. I'll try to shy away from religion every so often but this is my main interest so it will happen. For example I'm thinking about a Good Friday blog tomorrow.
Anyway that's all for now as typing this took literally my whole lunch hour. Have a blessed Triduum and come back here for more tomorrow.
Throughout the last 40 (ok 46) days Catholics and other Christians have taken various steps to attempt to come closer to God. In an emulation of Christ's 40 days fasting in the desert where he was tempted by Satan, we've all been called to give something up, or as the case may be to do more.
I for one chose to give up blogging except on Fridays and to endeavor to read the whole Bible. I give myself a D+. I did ok on the blog front though not perfect and I got through Numbers before skipping to the New Testament since I want to finish my reading with the same narrative I'll hear at mass Sunday.
Kelli limited her soda intake, one guy I read about consumed nothing but beer without getting drunk, others went on pilgrimages etc.
But now our time in the desert is over. Last Sunday we celebrated Christ's triumphant entrance into Jerusalem with the waving of palms and shouts of Hosanna.
Following Holy Monday (I don't really know what happens then), Holy Tuesday (when many dioceses celebrate the Chrism mass) and Holy Wednesday (traditionally the day Judas conspired with the Sanhedrin) -- we finally come to Holy Thursday which begins the Triduum.
The Triduum is the three days from Holy Thursday to Easter (keep in mind "days" in this context is evening to morning.)
During these days we consider within the context of real time what Christ went through for us. Beginning Palm Sunday we experience the joy of an exultant Christ, we then experience the betrayal of Judas and then the same crowds that had chanted "Hosanna." On Good Friday we recall his Passion and death. Saturday, until the vigil, we recall the loss, fear and even perhaps doubt felt by those who followed Christ at the time, tempered by the knowledge we have of what comes next.
Sorry for that long winded bit but it all leads to this.
Easter.
Some biblical scholars say it was probably April 5, 33 AD when Christ raised from the dead. His friends and family found only an empty tomb with an angel asking why do you look among the dead for one who is alive?
I know that Matt and Dungy are the main readers of this blog and so likely no one who cares about this sort of thing will read it, but I'm celebrating here so deal with it.
Prior to that day, before his death and resurrection, heaven was a theory. Sure it was there, but how could such sin-stained a people as us get in? We couldn't until God himself proclaimed great joy to the nations and came as a man, died as a man and then kicked death square in the jibblies.
The Bible says he was like us in all ways but sin. He laughed, he cried. He probably buried his father, he almost certainly worked for a time as a carpenter. He was, hungry, tired, hot, cold and thirsty.
Think about that kids, GOD HIMSELF, was hungry and thirsty. It's almost inconceivable.
The only thing crazier than humbling himself as a man would be what came next. First he taught, then he suffered greatly, was executed by his own people, and even after all that, saved us from certain death by defeating death itself.
Pardon my lack of explaining the theology here, I'm just excited it's Easter. We bummed the word, the eggs and the bunny from the pagans but that's not relevant to me. What happened and why we celebrate are what matter.
One thing I've heard an atheist (or maybe it was a pagan I really can't recall) say is this:
"How can a Christian believe something so crazy as that a God would become one of us, be beaten, humiliated and killed just to rise from the dead to save a people that throughout their own scripture are constantly sinning?" -- I paraphrased of course.
And they're right. It sounds nuts. But that's my God. He is the God of Abraham and Moses. He is the God of Noah and Solomon. He is the God of Peter and Paul, Father Nick and Father Don. So great is his love for us that to our weak ways it seems crazy.
Well I just want to say I'm happily insane then. I believe it all the way.
-----------
The existence of something doesn't prove a divine will for it to exist, but I heard something else the other day I wanted to share.
I was listening to a Catholic radio station down here in Lexington, and the host was talking about the recently passed six-year anniversary of Cardinal Ratzinger's election to the papacy as Benedict XVI. He recalled watching the election coverage on TV when a camera caught a high ranking US Cardinal looking intense and very introspective.
When that cardinal came back to the states, a journalist asked him what he was thinking at that moment and here is a paraphrase of what he said.
At that moment he said he was looking out across the square of St. Peter with millions of people chanting and crying. He saw hundreds of cameras beaming the events to billions more. He then looked over toward one of Rome's hills with ruins visible and thought that right then, from the seat of a city who's emperors once ruled the known world, a man was being given a fisherman's ring.
He said he thought about the glory and splendor of Caesar and other Roman rulers and thought, "Where are your successors?" They are gone and dead and while the influence remains, they're just another part of history. But the successor of a fisherman that followed a carpenter was now commanding all this. After 2,000 years we're still going strong.
I just thought that was a nice thought.
---------------
Ok so with Lent over I'm going to get back to blogging a little more often. I'll try to shy away from religion every so often but this is my main interest so it will happen. For example I'm thinking about a Good Friday blog tomorrow.
Anyway that's all for now as typing this took literally my whole lunch hour. Have a blessed Triduum and come back here for more tomorrow.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Adressing the problems, potential of eccumenical dialogue as it relates to Catholics
First let me begin in the practical world by stating clear, obvious facts that everyone already knows.
There are more than one religion on this planet. There are those with religion, those without it, those seeking it and those seeking to destroy it or ignore it. In short, a listing of all the various types of belief on earth is incomprehensibly large.
That said, we've only got one planet. There is a finite amount of space in which these belief structures must exist.
This means, of course, that to a degree we need to get along. I don't have to like or even respect Scientologists, but I can't run them over with my car or society doesn't work.
And since the western world has settled on the idea of freedom of religion, that means many times opposing believers will be neighbors in the truest sense.
All these facts have rightly led to ecumenical, that is to say inter-faith, dialogue. Often this will be a group of religious organizations banding together for a cause or sometimes banding together just to find common ground.
Let me stress, this is generally a good thing.
Christians, Jews and Muslims can find common ground in their common ancestry, Confucians and Buddhists can learn their similarities, neo-pagans and Mormons can meet face to face etc. When you put a face of a human being to a religion, unless you're a real bastard or fanatic, you're going to soften your dislike, distrust fear etc. All good things.
Here though is the issue. If you are a member of a faith that believes itself to be correct (most of them), believes that this world is only part of our existence (still most of them), believe that others will benefit by hearing of this (little less, still most) and believe that only your faith is the right one (IE, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their offshoots), then it isn't so simple.
As Roman Catholics, we are Christianity. Of course you could call us offshoots of the Jews, that's kind of accurate but I digress.
The problem with ecumenicism today isn't ecumenicism itself, but rather the culture of total acceptance. The world is telling young people today that everything is ok. To be completely honest, in the realm of public sentiment it appears the neo-pagan religion of Wicca has won the day with it's creed of "An it harm none, do what thou will."
As young Catholics grow up, most aren't lucky enough to get private schooling that will teach them the faith. The CCD programs (religious teaching programs) for public schools kids are great, if parents bother to take them. And worse, so many Catholic parents don't know or care enough about their faith to teach their kids.
So the kids glean what they can from Sunday mass or at least from Christmas and Easter mass. Then they watch men making out on Glee, they see the (usually justifiably) negative media attention the Church gets, they date Mormons (Mary T, I'm talking to you here lol (also everyone note I'm not opposed to interfaith dating)) and at the end of the day, they've forgotten they are part of a religion of the truth and they join the religion of the world.
The same thing can happen with ecumenical dialogue. If a Catholic of weak belief or one who lacks education on the faith enters into such dialogue, instead of coming out of it with the correct belief that "We are all God's children," he may leave it thinking "We all serve the same God," which unfortunately isn't exactly true.
Your basic Abrahamic religions all recognize the same God's existence, but the contradiction in beliefs, the differences in the plan of salvation in each, are too great to be said to serve the same purpose completely. For example, Christian ultra-offshoot Branch Davidians believe David Koresh was God and was right to nail 14-year old "wives" of his. Mainstream Christianity believes marriage is between one man and one woman and that polygamy is adultery. Which is it? You see my point.
Through ecumenical dialogue the world can be a better place. Muslims can see that Jews aren't the work of the devil so much as they can be seen as conservators of scripture. Catholics can see that protestants aren't a scourge on the earth, but help cast a wider net that can bring people to the faith. Non-believers can see the good believers do and vice versa.
With ecumenical dialogue the world can be a much much much better place, but if it comes at the expense of abandoning the truth then as nice as it might be, it's not a place worth living in.
There are more than one religion on this planet. There are those with religion, those without it, those seeking it and those seeking to destroy it or ignore it. In short, a listing of all the various types of belief on earth is incomprehensibly large.
That said, we've only got one planet. There is a finite amount of space in which these belief structures must exist.
This means, of course, that to a degree we need to get along. I don't have to like or even respect Scientologists, but I can't run them over with my car or society doesn't work.
And since the western world has settled on the idea of freedom of religion, that means many times opposing believers will be neighbors in the truest sense.
All these facts have rightly led to ecumenical, that is to say inter-faith, dialogue. Often this will be a group of religious organizations banding together for a cause or sometimes banding together just to find common ground.
Let me stress, this is generally a good thing.
Christians, Jews and Muslims can find common ground in their common ancestry, Confucians and Buddhists can learn their similarities, neo-pagans and Mormons can meet face to face etc. When you put a face of a human being to a religion, unless you're a real bastard or fanatic, you're going to soften your dislike, distrust fear etc. All good things.
Here though is the issue. If you are a member of a faith that believes itself to be correct (most of them), believes that this world is only part of our existence (still most of them), believe that others will benefit by hearing of this (little less, still most) and believe that only your faith is the right one (IE, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their offshoots), then it isn't so simple.
As Roman Catholics, we are Christianity. Of course you could call us offshoots of the Jews, that's kind of accurate but I digress.
The problem with ecumenicism today isn't ecumenicism itself, but rather the culture of total acceptance. The world is telling young people today that everything is ok. To be completely honest, in the realm of public sentiment it appears the neo-pagan religion of Wicca has won the day with it's creed of "An it harm none, do what thou will."
As young Catholics grow up, most aren't lucky enough to get private schooling that will teach them the faith. The CCD programs (religious teaching programs) for public schools kids are great, if parents bother to take them. And worse, so many Catholic parents don't know or care enough about their faith to teach their kids.
So the kids glean what they can from Sunday mass or at least from Christmas and Easter mass. Then they watch men making out on Glee, they see the (usually justifiably) negative media attention the Church gets, they date Mormons (Mary T, I'm talking to you here lol (also everyone note I'm not opposed to interfaith dating)) and at the end of the day, they've forgotten they are part of a religion of the truth and they join the religion of the world.
The same thing can happen with ecumenical dialogue. If a Catholic of weak belief or one who lacks education on the faith enters into such dialogue, instead of coming out of it with the correct belief that "We are all God's children," he may leave it thinking "We all serve the same God," which unfortunately isn't exactly true.
Your basic Abrahamic religions all recognize the same God's existence, but the contradiction in beliefs, the differences in the plan of salvation in each, are too great to be said to serve the same purpose completely. For example, Christian ultra-offshoot Branch Davidians believe David Koresh was God and was right to nail 14-year old "wives" of his. Mainstream Christianity believes marriage is between one man and one woman and that polygamy is adultery. Which is it? You see my point.
Through ecumenical dialogue the world can be a better place. Muslims can see that Jews aren't the work of the devil so much as they can be seen as conservators of scripture. Catholics can see that protestants aren't a scourge on the earth, but help cast a wider net that can bring people to the faith. Non-believers can see the good believers do and vice versa.
With ecumenical dialogue the world can be a much much much better place, but if it comes at the expense of abandoning the truth then as nice as it might be, it's not a place worth living in.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
If we don't ______ then the terrorists win
I know I gave up blogging for Lent except on Fridays but I missed a couple Fridays so I think this one's ok.
-------
Some nutty Christian pastor burnt up a Koran and so some UN people got killed. That makes sense right?
I mean, if someone in Ethiopia burns the bible, Christians would attack and kill unaffiliated workers at the African Union HQ right?
That's straight up stupid and the world needs to tell Islam enough is enough.
It took the world a long time to stand up to Christianity and tell it to sit the hell down and stop killing natives and burning witches, but it happened. And Christianity is only about 400 years older than Islam so maybe now is the time the world tells them off.
No other group in the short history of my life has been able to command as much fear as that of the islamic mob. I don't mean that in a mafia sense, but in the sense that an Al-Jazeera news report can send thousands of them out to the streets for blood.
Now some, like Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, Pakistan, are calling for the arrest of this American protestant pastor because be burnt the koran.
And some of what Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore says is true. The actions of the minister did enrage muslims, his actions were inflammatory.
Now some will argue his actions are responsible for the deaths of those UN workers...I say we make our stand here.
Enough. Sit down Islam. Count to 10.
I'm making my stand with a crazy ass Colonel Sanders looking pastor/furniture salesman who in a meaningless show of stupidity decided to exercise his rights under the US Constitution.
You'll note in a previous blog I've defended the Westboro Baptist "Church's" right to have it's dumb beliefs and show them to all who will look. I think salesman-pastor has the same right. I further believe angry muslims have every right to burn, beat and hang him in effigy, scream death to America, burn the US flag and go hog wild, so long as they don't hurt anyone.
But they can't kill for this, and we're complicit in those deaths if we do not stand up and point the finger for these deaths at the guilty, not at the idiot pastor.
All muslims are not to blame for this attack, 9-11 or anything even a bunch of them do. But no muslim leader with any clout ever speaks out firmly against irrational violence and we're not talking about just extremists. Hundreds to thousands of every day devout muslims join these violent "protests" over whatever South Park or some Florida church wacko does and in the process some foreigners tend to get killed.
I don't deny that there may be a time to fight and kill and die for one's faith. In some contexts, this is even noble. But the minutia over which it happens every month or so in the muslim world is too much.
Rioting and chaos are not from God, not from Moses, not from Jesus and not from Muhammad. It's from ignorance and intolerance on a really big level.
Well enough Islam. Judaism grew up. Christianity grew up. It's time to put on your big boy pants and join the modern world.
-------
Some nutty Christian pastor burnt up a Koran and so some UN people got killed. That makes sense right?
I mean, if someone in Ethiopia burns the bible, Christians would attack and kill unaffiliated workers at the African Union HQ right?
That's straight up stupid and the world needs to tell Islam enough is enough.
It took the world a long time to stand up to Christianity and tell it to sit the hell down and stop killing natives and burning witches, but it happened. And Christianity is only about 400 years older than Islam so maybe now is the time the world tells them off.
No other group in the short history of my life has been able to command as much fear as that of the islamic mob. I don't mean that in a mafia sense, but in the sense that an Al-Jazeera news report can send thousands of them out to the streets for blood.
Now some, like Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, Pakistan, are calling for the arrest of this American protestant pastor because be burnt the koran.
And some of what Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore says is true. The actions of the minister did enrage muslims, his actions were inflammatory.
Now some will argue his actions are responsible for the deaths of those UN workers...I say we make our stand here.
Enough. Sit down Islam. Count to 10.
I'm making my stand with a crazy ass Colonel Sanders looking pastor/furniture salesman who in a meaningless show of stupidity decided to exercise his rights under the US Constitution.
You'll note in a previous blog I've defended the Westboro Baptist "Church's" right to have it's dumb beliefs and show them to all who will look. I think salesman-pastor has the same right. I further believe angry muslims have every right to burn, beat and hang him in effigy, scream death to America, burn the US flag and go hog wild, so long as they don't hurt anyone.
But they can't kill for this, and we're complicit in those deaths if we do not stand up and point the finger for these deaths at the guilty, not at the idiot pastor.
All muslims are not to blame for this attack, 9-11 or anything even a bunch of them do. But no muslim leader with any clout ever speaks out firmly against irrational violence and we're not talking about just extremists. Hundreds to thousands of every day devout muslims join these violent "protests" over whatever South Park or some Florida church wacko does and in the process some foreigners tend to get killed.
I don't deny that there may be a time to fight and kill and die for one's faith. In some contexts, this is even noble. But the minutia over which it happens every month or so in the muslim world is too much.
Rioting and chaos are not from God, not from Moses, not from Jesus and not from Muhammad. It's from ignorance and intolerance on a really big level.
Well enough Islam. Judaism grew up. Christianity grew up. It's time to put on your big boy pants and join the modern world.
Friday, April 1, 2011
What is our role as a nation as it pertains to the Middle East
I wrote a long blog and realized it sucked. No time so here's a quick one that should invite some discussion.
I am concerned that NATO involvement in Libya is going to do more harm than good. The longer NATO is involved, the more those opposed to the rebellion will see it as a western backed coup, instead of a spontaneous demand of the Libyan people for change.
Furthermore, I am pasting this from Facebook for consideration.
I wrote first:
Here's an interesting question. Does the recognized leader of a country have a right to attempt to suppress rebellions and revolutions? If so, how far can that go and what role if any should the rest of the world play in intra-national disputes?
To summarize the next 20 comments, my friend Amy said Governments can't shoot their folks and if they try the world can act.
I said rebels and folks aren't the same, when a protester picks up a gun, all bets are off.
Matt challenged my use of the term recognized leader, considering that tyrants tend to come to power through violence and don't need to be validated by the citizenry.
Several more comments....
Amy said the world has a right to step in.
I say international borders are to be respected more.
Then it gets a little off topic until...
Matt says "So if a US general were to perform a coup de etat to take over the US government, and the rest of the world decided to recognize him as the authorized authority, then we, the US citizenry, would have no choice but to accept him as our sovereign?"
I, like a tool, don't directly answer but say "what say we make the rule that the world has five years to get involved. Once you're in power 30 years, another country coming in is an attack, not aid."
So the question is again posed, have we any right to be in this fight, if we do, should we bother, and if not, what role if any do we have to play in this situation?
I am concerned that NATO involvement in Libya is going to do more harm than good. The longer NATO is involved, the more those opposed to the rebellion will see it as a western backed coup, instead of a spontaneous demand of the Libyan people for change.
Furthermore, I am pasting this from Facebook for consideration.
I wrote first:
Here's an interesting question. Does the recognized leader of a country have a right to attempt to suppress rebellions and revolutions? If so, how far can that go and what role if any should the rest of the world play in intra-national disputes?
To summarize the next 20 comments, my friend Amy said Governments can't shoot their folks and if they try the world can act.
I said rebels and folks aren't the same, when a protester picks up a gun, all bets are off.
Matt challenged my use of the term recognized leader, considering that tyrants tend to come to power through violence and don't need to be validated by the citizenry.
Several more comments....
Amy said the world has a right to step in.
I say international borders are to be respected more.
Then it gets a little off topic until...
Matt says "So if a US general were to perform a coup de etat to take over the US government, and the rest of the world decided to recognize him as the authorized authority, then we, the US citizenry, would have no choice but to accept him as our sovereign?"
I, like a tool, don't directly answer but say "what say we make the rule that the world has five years to get involved. Once you're in power 30 years, another country coming in is an attack, not aid."
So the question is again posed, have we any right to be in this fight, if we do, should we bother, and if not, what role if any do we have to play in this situation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)