Provocateurs rally in Belgrade
Source: B92 (Serbian text)As the deadline for negotiations over Kosovo expired on December 10th, there was a rally in Belgrade's main square. A rally against Albanian independence you might think. Nope. The demonstrators called themselves the 'Coalition for a secular state'. All the usual suspects were present including homosexual lobbyists Queeria, various human rights organisations etc. It's interesting to note that they decided to protest against the Serbian Orthodox Church even though Serbia is on the verge of losing its most holy territory. These people are so brainwashed that they can't tell the difference between friend and foe.
Some of the banners included 'Women against fundamentalism' and 'Stop the clericalization of Serbia'. The organisers said that 'Serbia faces a choice between isolation and Europe'. Again they use 'Europe' as shorthand for the EU, as Trifkovic pointed out in his article. The choice they present is, needless to say, a false one. More accurately put it is: 'stand up to the bully or submit to him'. And who wants to join an organisation full of countries that bombed us 9 years ago and that still advocate (with a few honourable exceptions) the dismemberment of Serbia?
_____________________________________________
Technorati tags;
serbia demonstration belgrade
posted by serbialives admin at 7:48 PM
17 Comments:
Hi,
Here is also an articel about this event (in serbian) and some photos aswell:
http://gorandavidovic.com/index.php
And here aswell:
http://www.mtsmondo.com/news/vesti/text.php?vest=79779
Very interesting event, what was their performance by the way? Maybe it was all part of the theatre? One thing though, it was only barely hundred nationalists present.....
Maybe there is no interest in protesting to this kind of "performances" anymore?!
All the best
Pedja
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=20C19E94-DF27-4305-9B54-5538BA0E48CD
Tell all your Serb friends and family about Miss Gorin's article, Nikola. We need to finally mobilize our cause.
I also want to draw attention to two other bloggers.
http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/
And
http://fromminasmorgul.blogspot.com/
Why are you so against the secularization of Serbia? Would you have a bunch of unelected bearded men in frocks dictate what we are to do, or elect someone to represent our interests? All countries ruled by clerics are socially backward anyway (Iran, Sudan, Somalia, the Vatican...); they claim fairies, angels and spaghetti monsters tell them what to do. So much for divine free will, eh?
Anonymous, please explain yourself!
Are you making out that you are for a secular Serbia and have trecherous,sold souls for leaders instead of a nation led by God-endorsed and educated people to lead a nation that has been deprived of these indispensable values over the last 60+ years??!!
Well-equipped should explain HIMSELF as to why he thinks an unelected bunch of bearded old men in frocks are superior to an elected parliament.
When education is limited to theology degrees held by bearded old men in frocks issued by bearded older men in frocks, you can't really say they're educated for anything else except to be bearded old men in frocks.
If you seriously believe that holders of qualifications in theology are equipped to run a modern economy, then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
Its just as i thought, not only do you evade answering the original question and avoid presenting your own position but you actually take after all the other liberals and write up a farce and offer no reasonable argument.have you no shame?youve come here to talk but yet youve got nothing to bring to the table..the best you can come up with is "bearded men in frocks", your a joke mate and your asking to be exposed which you will be shortly....
Exposed? Why? Because your views aren't agreed with? Get lost...
Like a right-wing FOX-News presenter, you can't address what's being said, you simply reveal your true colors with the questions you ask.
Let's have a look:
"Are you making out that you are for a secular Serbia"
Like anyone with an ounce of functioning brain matter, I believe the Serbian government should be run by elected officials, not by unelected old men in frocks, whatever their stripe.
" and have trecherous,sold souls for leaders"
You assume that unelected rulers are better? That's what they all thought when broz was brought in.
" instead of a nation led by God-endorsed and educated people"
God endorses them? How? With a thunderclap? Tell us HOW God endorses unelected clerics to lead... we're dying to know.
" to lead a nation that has been deprived of these indispensable values over the last 60+ years??!!"
What indispensable values? Please be clearer in what you say.
Anyway, if you say that 'indispensable values' are essential, why are the champions of this morality you no doubt wax lyrical about in your everyday life attacked by their own as mafia bosses? http://www.novinar.de/2007/02/15/mafija-vlada-crkvom.html
anonymous:
I don’t believe that it is possible for a Christian to be for a secular state. How can I have respect for a leader, government or state that does not recognise God or his accountability to Him. That is why we are killing 200,000 children a year in their mother’s wombs. Because no one feels that they are answerable to a higher power. They put man-made law before divine law.
You make an assumption on my behalf that I think that the alternative is the rule of clerics. I do not advocate, nor does the Church, that the clergy should run administrative matters such as economic affairs. Nor is there a precedent in Serbian history. As St. Nikolai said we need a symphony between the Church and state.
Why are you so infavour of elected officials? Who guarantees that the electorate is competent to choose who is best? Who guarantees that the officials elected will do what they say? After all they are answerable only to man-made law. There are no punishments for breaking it as long as they don’t get caught. I live in a supposed democracy and I have witnessed countless policies implemented, including ones that have had a massive impact on the social and moral fabric of this society, that would never have been passed by a vote. So these policies were quite simply never put to the vote. In any case, as Ljotic said, parliamentary democracy or partyocracy is barren and chaotic. It splits the people and cannot be visionary or unifying. I would argue that those that run areas such as the economy should be technocrats or experts in their own particular field, and given the mandate to plan longterm. Not career politicians who are one day minister of foreign affairs, and on the next minister for transport, and whose policies are based on elections in a couple of years time.
Anyone who is in any position of power must submit and acknowledge the law of God. The economy does not exist in a vacuum, and neither do the armed forces, foreign ministry officials etc. They must be guided by the teachings of the Church. Because moral questions exist in all spheres of life. For instance ‘national interest’ which is not tempered by a thirst for justice and righteousness, leads to imperialism and war.
As regards the link you gave, I am clearly in no position to say which allegtions are true and which aren’t. But the ‘indispensable values’ that the other commentator mentioned do not suddenly disappear because of some corrupt priests or even bishops.
For the attention of "Anonymous",
You have just been exposed, just like I said you would.
Your foundationless and Anti-Christian values have invited a response to which nobody can counter rationally.
Therefore, please see Nikola`s response as an eye opener for you because I hope you can change your mind about persuing such liberal and conformistic beliefs any further.
Yours Trully,
Well Equipped.
I thank Nikola for such a lengthy and level-headed reply. Though he seems to assume the alternative to a secular state is some sort of civilian theocracy. Secular states exist with Christians at the helm, and they function rather well. By the language you use, we can safely assume you reside in one of these secular nations lead in part by people holding Christian beliefs.
"How can I have respect for a leader, government or state that does not recognise God or his accountability to Him. That is why we are killing 200,000 children a year in their mother’s wombs. Because no one feels that they are answerable to a higher power. They put man-made law before divine law."
I notice you place huge emphasis on politicians' belief system, as if that in itself will appoint them to their positions of power.
I have never heard of a soundly elected official forcing women to have abortions. That is the decision of the woman (and those around her in some instances). While we may be personally against abortion as a Christian, to advocate its outlawing repeats the mistake of a sect in the time of John Chrysostom that outlawed marriage for all of its adherents. St John wrote of them that they will burn in hell because their law doesn't allow FREE CHOICE i.e. the choice to risk marriage or to risk celibacy, but only celibacy. In the same way, abortion must be legalised so the pregnant woman can say 'I have a choice, and I choose NOT to abort'. That's the crux of Christian free will, is it not?
"Why are you so infavour of elected officials? Who guarantees that the electorate is competent to choose who is best? Who guarantees that the officials elected will do what they say? After all they are answerable only to man-made law.There are no punishments for breaking it as long as they don’t get caught."
If I read you clearly, if the law of God (as interpreted by any particular church) is in force, then officials who make bad decisions will be caught? By whom? If you say 'God's soldiers on Earth', you automatically fall onto the clergy. Then the clergy have final say over what is right for a state and what isn't.
But isn't divine law universal? All will answer for it, right? If so, why then this emphasis on those who 'believe' in divine punishment? Do they need to *believe* prior to any possibile punishment?
If they need to believe before they think they will be punished, then the universality of divine law is shot down rather comprehensively.
If you with to advocate the universality of divine law, then it's perfectly logical that believers and non-believers will be EQUALLY subject to divine law whether they like it or not.
Your last part on the ideas of the traitor Ljotic echo those of fascism. They do not warrant a reply other than 'FASCIST!'
"Your last part on the ideas of the traitor Ljotic echo those of fascism. They do not warrant a reply other than 'FASCIST!'"
Please Nikola, dont waste your time answering complete bums like the ones writing this above!!!
Za Krst Casni
First of all I’d just like to point out that I think it is worth replying to anonymous. No matter how wrong we might each think that the other is, no progress is made if we refuse to engage in discussion. And though some of his arguments may have been phrased better, he does have some understandable concerns.
he seems to assume the alternative to a secular state is some sort of civilian theocracy.
What I’m talking about is not a civilian theocracy, because it is not a theocracy at all. And it is not some nebulous idea, because we have experienced a glorious symphony between Church and state in Serbian history before. I highly recommend you read ‘Srpski narod kao teodul’ by St. Nikolai. It’s actually very short.
Secular states exist with Christians at the helm, and they function rather well.
You say that secular states exist with Christians at the helm, and indeed they do. But I don’t agree that they function rather well. Maybe you have some concrete examples?
I notice you place huge emphasis on politicians' belief system, as if that in itself will appoint them to their positions of power.
Of course a politician’s belief system will not of itself appoint them to positions of power. And that is one of the downfalls of a secular parliamentary democracy. In that those with the best credentials are least likely to be in power.
I have never heard of a soundly elected official forcing women to have abortions. That is the decision of the woman (and those around her in some instances). While we may be personally against abortion as a Christian, to advocate its outlawing repeats the mistake of a sect in the time of John Chrysostom that outlawed marriage for all of its adherents. St John wrote of them that they will burn in hell because their law doesn't allow FREE CHOICE i.e. the choice to risk marriage or to risk celibacy, but only celibacy. In the same way, abortion must be legalised so the pregnant woman can say 'I have a choice, and I choose NOT to abort'. That's the crux of Christian free will, is it not?
You are right when you say that we all have free will. But your argument about the sect that was against marriage is not analogous to the argument against abortion. First of all the primary error of that sect was not that they didn’t allow free will, but that they saw marriage as sinful. They were plain wrong on that point. It’s not that they were right but that they should have allowed people to exercise their free will and sin. It wasn’t a sin in the first place. Abortion on the otherhand is a sin.
I suppose your argument would be that people should be free to sin, especially if they don’t recognise it as a sin. That point has some merit in the case of other sins, but not in the case of abortion. Abortion involves another’s life, and the woman’s free will does not entitle her to end another’s life.
If I read you clearly, if the law of God (as interpreted by any particular church) is in force, then officials who make bad decisions will be caught? By whom? If you say 'God's soldiers on Earth', you automatically fall onto the clergy. Then the clergy have final say over what is right for a state and what isn't.
Well this is the point. They won’t have to have people on earth running after them watching their every move because they will be answerable to God. Not the clergy, God. It is their fear of God which will guide them. This doesn’t exclude a legal system, and it doesn’t mean that they won’t transgress. But they are less likely to transgress because they believe that their actions and thoughts, even if unknown to men, are known to God.
But isn't divine law universal? All will answer for it, right? If so, why then this emphasis on those who 'believe' in divine punishment? Do they need to *believe* prior to any possibile punishment?
They don’t need to believe prior to any punishment, no. But those that believe will act according to their conscience.
If you with to advocate the universality of divine law, then it's perfectly logical that believers and non-believers will be EQUALLY subject to divine law whether they like it or not.
When I talk about divine law, I am not merely talking about that which can be enshrined in a legal system. For instance jealousy transgresses God’s law, but it would be impossible to have a legal system which prosecutes jealousy. Only the divine intelligence can see every transgression. This is also another example of why a secular system is incomplete. It believes that only that which it determines is illegal is wrong.
Your last part on the ideas of the traitor Ljotic echo those of fascism. They do not warrant a reply other than 'FASCIST!'
I encourage you to read some of Ljotic’s works. The slur that he was a fascist is not one that stands up to scrutiny. Read for example this speech of his where he explains why he is against fascism. Read also this speech of St. Nikolai’s at Ljotic’s funeral.
Before addressing anything else:
"we have experienced a glorious symphony between Church and state in Serbian history before."
Because the workd of Vl. Nikolaj are difficult to get to in my neck of the woods, please elaborate. Where and when?
Sadly, it seems that Serbia is becoming more and more like Greece every day. This isn't the Serbia I remember from the 1990s. In the case of Greece, for the last 30+ years the Western puppets in power have done everything in their power to undermine Orthodoxy and nationalism. While their efforts have been limited in some ways, the fact remains that Helleno-Orthodox nationalists have absolutely no political representation, no exposure in the media, and suffer from a prejudiced judicial system that not only jails us at every opportunity that is presented but refuses to punish terrorists who regularly attack us. What's worse is that, despite all the oppression we face from the establishment, there is still no revolutionary activity! If Serbia doesn't do something, and something soon, this is the future that awaits.
"Helleno-Orthodox nationalists have absolutely no political representation"
Your right Hellenian, in the current system in place no true nationalist party will flourish (instead we get sub-par movements like Golden Dawn or LAOS.) But then again as nationalists we must first recognize that democracy is detrimental to the nation and our goal should be:
-Emphasize to our brothers that the filthy degenerative culture spewing in Greece is nihilistic on both the personal and national level and that to succeed we must focus on our traditional Orthodox values
-Organize a large enough movement, that will not engage the current political climate rather stand apart from its incompetence/indecisiveness/disunity
-Once with sufficient support we can launch a coup and reclaim our fatherland from those who would whore it to the West
Only then can Hellas flourish
Your strategy is sound, HellenicSon. Liberal democracy is diametrically opposed to nationalism and at complete odds with our nation's socio-political evolution. Therefore, changes will never occur democratically but only through revolutionary means. The democratic anomaly will only continue to further the prevailing state of decadence and social entropy. Generally speaking, this applies to most other traditionally Orthodox nations as well. Only Serbia, in my opinion, stands a chance of having its nationalists come to power without a revolution -- though, of course, they too would have to destroy the alien democratic system after they attained power to correct their historical course. The reason for this difference is because Serbia's conditions, compared to the rest of the Orthodox world, are quite unique: a slew of wars have militarized the common Serb, Serbian nationalists have great electoral strength (the only reason they haven't yet formed a government is because every other party forms a giant coalition to keep them out of power), and the West is unintentionally (but unquestionably) radicalizing Serbs.
This comes somewhat late but I just want to note the following:
When trying to convince people that abortion is murder (and, therefore, never justifiable) we should use secular arguments based on science and logic and not religious ones because those who support abortion, have abortions, or give abortions are people who are not religious and, therefore, that type of argument only makes them think that the pro-life stance is bereft of "real" arguments when, in truth, science is very clear on the matter that human life begins at conception (and, consequently, so does personhood) and that birth and self-consciousness do not determine whether or not a person is a human being. In the words of an American judge, "one must at least recognize, first, that the fetus is an entity that bears in its cells all the genetic information that characterizes a member of the species Homo sapiens and distinguishes an individual member of that species from all others and, second, that there is no nonarbitrary line separating a fetus from a child or, indeed, an adult human being".
Also, there have been situations where a member of a democratic political establishment has forced a girl/woman to have an abortion against her will. See the following article for details: Girl Suffers Forced Abortion in Italy: Minors have no “right to choose” life in Catholic nation.
As I commented elsewhere about this, "This is one of the most horrendous, barbaric, and anti-human things I've ever heard. That the parents of a pregnant girl would demand that the girl murder her own child (and their grandchild) and that the Italian judicial system would impose this death sentence on her unborn child is abominable. Not only was one completely innocent and defenseless human being executed by the state but the girl (who was also a victim of the state) now suffers extreme psychological problems (to the point of wanting to end her life) and possible physical problems as well (since abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer and infertility), directly as a result of the forced abortion. It must also be mentioned that these monstrous acts of barbarity are regularly committed in Communist China".
In regards to the "glorious symphony between Church and state in Serbian history", I assume that Nikola is making a reference to the medieval Serbian state. It is worth noting that, at one point in time, the Serbian Empire was the strongest nation in what is considered to be "Europe". As Steven Runciman noted, "In the 14th century Tsar Stephan Dushan was perhaps the most powerful ruler in Europe". (It is also worth noting that Dusan dreamt of a Serbian-Greek Empire and, to anticipate it, had himself crowned "Emperor of Serbs and Greeks".) Ever since the Orthodox peoples' liberation from the Turkish bondage and their acceptance of alien systems of government as a result of their dealings with the West, they have never recovered their power, glory, or natural and traditional way of life. The answer, of course, is not to revert blindly to the old ways but, rather, to use the old ways as a guide for the present and the future, taking what is appropriate, leaving what isn't, and modifying what needs modification. Clearly, though, one of the things that needs complete rejection is the alien creed of secularism, which is to be replaced by a nation-state where Church and State are one and work together in harmony for both the spiritual and physical well-being of the people. (And, to clarify, the union of Church and State does not necessarily mean hierocracy, as some have mistakenly interpreted.)
Finally (and to quote myself again), "although Fascism is so often misused as an all-purpose pejorative by leftists and rightists alike that doesn't change the fact that the word denotes a legitimate political philosophy". Those who denounce people as "fascists" only demonstrate two things: their ignorance of its meaning and the shallowness of their rhetoric. As for the former, fascism (to put things simply) is an ideology based on nationalist, authoritarian, and socialistic principles. Further, history has vindicated it as a very advanced form of government, possessing great efficiency and great recuperative and revitalizing powers. The fact that it is an organic form of government only increases its high credentials.
Post a Comment
<< Home