Sunday, January 8, 2012

Believing their way against understanding

The merry manipulators of our lives met last night at a college named for an 11th Century martyr who said, Nor do I seek to un-derstand that I may be-lieve, but I believe that I may understand. No one challenged, and our dar-ling Mitt endorsed, Newt Gingrich's argument in favour of an establishment of religion in the United States, as the predicate for deciding, in Romney's phrase, who shall possess human rights. Our Mitt exuberantly endorsed Gingrich's canard that a judicial rejection of sectarian distribution of funds from the US Treasury is an act of bigotry.

It is immaculately fitting that this romp of Orwellian casuistry took place at St Anselm's, whose battle with William the Conqueror over the line between Church and State was won by a man the Church lionised as a victim. It is plain, the 'argument' against the human right to matrimony is identical with the final agonies of racial persecution in the American South: gosh darn it, we've always been allowed to do it. Gingrich literally insisted, Santorum concurring volubly and Mitt smilingly, that the administration of the sacramental aspect of marriage is for the State to enforce. As expected, there was no journalism present.

I think no one would query, that rmbl has been a complaisant little blog where our demagogues have been concerned. They are popular with the indig-nant and sustain jobs with their cant. We do not listen in on their rites, offering no more than an advisory here or there of their next move. But this meeting at St Anselm's was all that was necessary to frame one question: How mentally corrupt must they think our people are?


  1. the Newt"on" view of the sanctity of Marriage is laughable. my thought has always been-it's another CLUB for elites where you can get kicked out of and reinstated almost immediately.pgt

  2. Thank you for contributing, PGT. As someone who once entered into that sacrament, it gave me then and gives me still no comfort to have the State's permission to breach it - a separation of church and state which seems to work one way but not the other, in the warped thinking of these theocrats. But my respect for the meaning of the sacrament is not the subject of this entry.

    It was absolutely breathtaking to hear Romney extolling the many favours "we can decide" (a precise quotation) to extend, such as deathbed visits, for those he would oppress for electoral profit. I don't care what one's politics may be, the fact that people may draw ANY attention to their clamour for the leadership of this country, in order to decide what sops to extend to those whose rights they’d deny, is not something I approve of broadcasting to the young without mature supervision.

    You are aware, I don't doubt, that these men stood on that stage before 3 illuminati of their trade and a nation of anxious citizens, and unanimously reduced human rights to a satchel of favours distributed by the Church for the State to implement, without a single demurral from these "moderators." What on earth explains their power to command this stage?

    St Anselm would have made a bonfire of Gingrich for his first divorce, let alone his other conduct, and he knows it. But he is beneath the point. Nor is the sacrament the issue; as a construct of faith, not of governance, it is not even on the table at this page. What is on the table, and will stay there, is this foul conspiracy to exploit dogma to steal the human rights of Americans whose Constitution categorically - and may one interject, thank god - forbids it. I don't like the young to see the thrill they take in this tyranny they stand there to wield so shamelessly. I don’t like to see adults not leaving the room.

    I love to see you here.

  3. I like the blue mug, although a red one would be more appropriate and more coherent with the medium. (I'm trying to be witty here :)

    Talking about form, I will terminate my snowflakes today, bemused and somewhat disappointed that their presence on ac throughout the festive season didn't drawn one single remark or comment -- even negative or derogatory ones -- from my visitors. Now, I will not dispute that snow flakes floating down your laptop screen around Xmas time are NOT a very common occurrence in this numeric age and that my attempt at giving my blog some Xmas chocolate-box flavor was NOT childish at best and corny at worst.

  4. I'm :) grateful :) for your seizure upon the blue mug, with which you may well imagine my moral struggle, Franck ~ I nearly monochromed it, but I wanted the only bw to be the complaisant blogger in profile. YES your snowflakes were screamygoddy yummy and wondrously refreshing, may I say, to the upturned brow. As for their unremarked amenity, I think you must realise how daunting it is to praise a snowflake in the first place. But now I shall miss them terribly, feeling their disappearance to be a kind of revocation or rebuke. Oh, say it isn't SO, dear Franck .... :)

    But, lo! I just dashed over, and caught a snowflake!