It's easy to explain: he controls the media. He can make himself look good and his opposition look bad. The fact that his coalitions tend to be more stable also helps, I'm sure.
I bet the people of Italy need Google more than Google needs them.
I'm not so sure about that. Italy is a pretty big market, and Italy survived perfectly fine before Google. It wouldn't surprise me if Berlusconi would love to get the opportunity to create an official Italian search engine under his control.
Berlusconi controls the government, and through the media, also the voters. He's made it obvious over the years that he doesn't consider this a conflict of interests, he considers it synergy.
That way he'd still be subject to the law. But with his control over the media, it's pretty easy for him to get elected, and then he can change the laws to make himself immune to prosecution, and increase his hold on the media while he's at it (which is what this particular issue is about).
Sure, he could be satisfied with just being rich, but clearly he prefer to use his wealth to buy power, and then demonstrate his power by showing how he's above the law and not like any of us mortals.
I have always wondered if that was true about Saturday... heard contradictions, etc.
Sabbath has always been Saturday, and it's pretty well documented as such. Christians just don't keep the sabbath (though there are exceptions), though many consider the Sunday some sort of replacement. Exactly how strictly it's observed can vary wildly. I have no problem going to a supermarket on Sunday.
I am not familiar with the term vicar, but a quick lookup and I have to say I have an issue with anyone getting paid and others not.
Vicar is what Google Translate suggested as the English translation for the Dutch word "dominee", but I'm just as fine with "preacher" or "reverend" or what have you. I don't grok the subtleties of any of those terms, I'm afraid. In any case, I'm talking about the guy (or girl) who generally leads the sermon, as well as taking care of the spiritual health of the members of the congregation. He doesn't just talk a bit on Sunday, it's a full-time job. Pouring coffee isn't. And neither are the dozens of other odd-jobs that somebody needs to do. What's so bad about volunteer work? And what's so bad about making sure the full-timers get some food on the table. (In my church professional musicians also get a bit (not much though). And amateur musicians don't. Nobody has a problem with that. Because for some people it's a (small part of a) job, for others it's a hobby.
People in the church should get paid for teaching and things related to commencing that imho.
If you pay everybody for every little thing that needs to be done, they'd have to institute mandatory (and pretty steep) membership fees. All churches I know of run on donations, and give much of that to various charities. Church is not a for-profit venture. Most people are happy to chip in simply as members of a community.
Open Source projects would die pretty quickly if everybody has to get paid for every line of code. It's a community thing.
If that is the rule, that is the rule, for example. Do not bend the rule. If the rule is bad, then change it. When you blur the line in the sand, after awhile there is no longer a line. Hence, I don't see how you can literally go overboard with a rule. Fail to recognize it is a failure, sure. But then call it that.
The rule in this case is generally interpreted as not working your ass off 7 days a week, but taking some time to relax and reflect regularly. Christianity is not a religion with hard, unbendable carved-in-stone rules. It's all about interpretation and how it works for you. The New Testament is actually pretty clear on that.
By that logic the Nazi soldiers that attempted to overthrow Hitler were sinners, because they ignored Jesus' word. Jesus said pay taxes, but never said you should bow to a tyrant that is suppressing people,
Not bowing to a tyrant doesn't automatically mean you need to kill him. Jesus had no problem disobeying harmful rules of his society. He healed people on the sabbath, prepared food, etc. But his resistance is more one of Gandhi-style resistance. He wanted to do what's right, and show others his example, and not let the rules of society stop him from doing what's right. He didn't attempt to overthrow the Romans, or even the Jewish theocracy.
How is it absurd? Saying that people have a right to live doesn't help much when the discussion is about what a person is. Is a clump of cells of questionable viability already a person? I'd say not. A fetus that's practically ready to be born? I'd say it is.
So the limit for abortion should lie somewhere in between those two. But banning abortions before the 12th week is just silly. Just like abortions after week 26 (for anything other than really strong medical reasons) would be inhuman.
We are supposed to respect the sabbath and not work. Others serving us tea, coffee and cookies to make a living is not respecting it just because "we" are not working.
But the sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Besides, the coffee is served by volunteers. The vicar gets paid, though. So that might be an issue if you want to go overboard on this.
Manning betrayed his country and oath in a time of war
Was it really a time of war? Has war been declared? I'm not a lawyer, but if war hasn't legally been declared, then I don't think it could legally be a time of war, now could it?
However, on abortion, I'm confident that Christ would oppose it. He stressed generosity to those in need, and would have been against the killing of the unborn. The pro-choice folks always focus on the rights of the mother, but I think Christ would favor the rights of the child-to-be.
Possibly. Or he might balance the needs of the mother and the needs of the unborn child. You know that there is balance possible in the abortion debate, don't you?
During the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the fetus is little more than a clump of cells, and absolutely anything can abort the pregnancy. A miscarriage is very likely in those first weeks. After 30 weeks, on the other hand, the baby can survive a premature birth. In fact, I think it's at about 26 weeks now, which makes me a bit uncomfortable about the 24-week limit for abortion in my country. I'd prefer moving the limit back to 17 weeks, but for now at least, there are medical reasons to have it at 24 weeks. (Some birth defects can't be detected until 20. weeks with current technology, but that technology might improve.)
They dig way too deep into the Old Testament to find passages that support their prejudices and preach far more hate than Christ would ever tolerate. Have you seen the mega-churches with the Starbucks inside? Christ would positively kick ass were he to walk into one of those, and yet they flourish.
I essentially agree, but would also like to point out that this isn't all churches you're talking about. There are also a lot of churches do the right thing, or at least do a decent job of trying. That preach love instead of bigotry and commercialism.
I have read it. And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor.
You're making a mockery of it. Of course you shouldn't take other people's money. Why are you even suggesting that that is what this could be about? But Jesus did say that you should pay your taxes. And he also said that you should give everything you own (rather than a mere 10%) away to others. And not just your friends, or to people like you, but to complete strangers.
The software being open doesn't help you much when the hardware has been locked down. The EU needs to create a rule that every piece of hardware should be explicit about whether it's open or closed. Even when the majority is closed, we'll be able to find the few that are open and reward them by buying them.
Here, any supposed "Christian" only gets to be a card-carrying member if they hate gays, blacks and anyone even slightly left.
That's a pretty severe case of "reading a completely different bible than I do". My bible is all about loving people, including any sinners and enemies. It says stuff like: "Judge not, lest you be judged." And it's pretty radical left with all its giving to those less well-off, sharing with the community (some early churches were pretty communist in that regard), rich people having a pretty hard time getting into heaven, and overthrowing the order of those days. As for hating blacks, I have honestly no idea how anyone who does that can still call himself a Christian.
Christians are Christianity's biggest enemies. It's like Gandhi said: "If only Christians would follow the teachings of Christ, Christianity would be irresistible." (I'm paraphrasing really; can't remember the exact quote.)
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks. That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed).
Note that you are only talking about some Christians here. Many Christians do not fit your description.
Aldenissin, I would venture to say that you are an anomaly in the Christian world.
He might be an anomaly among American Christians (many of them give me the impression of reading a completely different bible than I do), but I suspect even there he's not alone. In Europe, there are definitely many Christians who have no problem with people being naked in their own home (or even outside of it), or smoking marijuana. It's possible many are somewhat uncomfortable with it, but that doesn't mean they want to prohibit it.
Then again, I live in a country where marijuana is practically legal, despite a conservative Christian party having been permanently in power for over a century (with the exception of 8 years during the '90s).
Not every government throws journalists and dissenters in jail. There are still a few free countries left in the world, although their numbers are rapidly shrinking.
how is being Prime Minister equivalent to being dictator?
We're talking about Putin here. Have you noticed how nobody cares about Medvedev, and Putin is still the real leader of Russia, just like when he was still president?
No, they're subtly different. The US is a plutocracy, Russia is a kleptocracy. So in the US, corporations give money to politicians in order to buy power, whereas in Russia, politicians and corporations take money from the state in order to enrich themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to explain: he controls the media. He can make himself look good and his opposition look bad. The fact that his coalitions tend to be more stable also helps, I'm sure.
Surprisingly, his coalitions do tend to be more stable than those of the opposition. He probably has his ways to keep everybody in line.
Italy has always been corrupt, but Berlusconi took it to entirely new levels.
I bet the people of Italy need Google more than Google needs them.
I'm not so sure about that. Italy is a pretty big market, and Italy survived perfectly fine before Google. It wouldn't surprise me if Berlusconi would love to get the opportunity to create an official Italian search engine under his control.
Berlusconi controls the government, and through the media, also the voters. He's made it obvious over the years that he doesn't consider this a conflict of interests, he considers it synergy.
That way he'd still be subject to the law. But with his control over the media, it's pretty easy for him to get elected, and then he can change the laws to make himself immune to prosecution, and increase his hold on the media while he's at it (which is what this particular issue is about).
Sure, he could be satisfied with just being rich, but clearly he prefer to use his wealth to buy power, and then demonstrate his power by showing how he's above the law and not like any of us mortals.
I have always wondered if that was true about Saturday... heard contradictions, etc.
Sabbath has always been Saturday, and it's pretty well documented as such. Christians just don't keep the sabbath (though there are exceptions), though many consider the Sunday some sort of replacement. Exactly how strictly it's observed can vary wildly. I have no problem going to a supermarket on Sunday.
I am not familiar with the term vicar, but a quick lookup and I have to say I have an issue with anyone getting paid and others not.
Vicar is what Google Translate suggested as the English translation for the Dutch word "dominee", but I'm just as fine with "preacher" or "reverend" or what have you. I don't grok the subtleties of any of those terms, I'm afraid.
In any case, I'm talking about the guy (or girl) who generally leads the sermon, as well as taking care of the spiritual health of the members of the congregation. He doesn't just talk a bit on Sunday, it's a full-time job. Pouring coffee isn't. And neither are the dozens of other odd-jobs that somebody needs to do. What's so bad about volunteer work? And what's so bad about making sure the full-timers get some food on the table. (In my church professional musicians also get a bit (not much though). And amateur musicians don't. Nobody has a problem with that. Because for some people it's a (small part of a) job, for others it's a hobby.
People in the church should get paid for teaching and things related to commencing that imho.
If you pay everybody for every little thing that needs to be done, they'd have to institute mandatory (and pretty steep) membership fees. All churches I know of run on donations, and give much of that to various charities. Church is not a for-profit venture. Most people are happy to chip in simply as members of a community.
Open Source projects would die pretty quickly if everybody has to get paid for every line of code. It's a community thing.
If that is the rule, that is the rule, for example. Do not bend the rule. If the rule is bad, then change it. When you blur the line in the sand, after awhile there is no longer a line. Hence, I don't see how you can literally go overboard with a rule. Fail to recognize it is a failure, sure. But then call it that.
The rule in this case is generally interpreted as not working your ass off 7 days a week, but taking some time to relax and reflect regularly. Christianity is not a religion with hard, unbendable carved-in-stone rules. It's all about interpretation and how it works for you. The New Testament is actually pretty clear on that.
By that logic the Nazi soldiers that attempted to overthrow Hitler were sinners, because they ignored Jesus' word. Jesus said pay taxes, but never said you should bow to a tyrant that is suppressing people,
Not bowing to a tyrant doesn't automatically mean you need to kill him. Jesus had no problem disobeying harmful rules of his society. He healed people on the sabbath, prepared food, etc. But his resistance is more one of Gandhi-style resistance. He wanted to do what's right, and show others his example, and not let the rules of society stop him from doing what's right. He didn't attempt to overthrow the Romans, or even the Jewish theocracy.
How is it absurd? Saying that people have a right to live doesn't help much when the discussion is about what a person is. Is a clump of cells of questionable viability already a person? I'd say not. A fetus that's practically ready to be born? I'd say it is.
So the limit for abortion should lie somewhere in between those two. But banning abortions before the 12th week is just silly. Just like abortions after week 26 (for anything other than really strong medical reasons) would be inhuman.
We are supposed to respect the sabbath and not work. Others serving us tea, coffee and cookies to make a living is not respecting it just because "we" are not working.
But the sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Besides, the coffee is served by volunteers. The vicar gets paid, though. So that might be an issue if you want to go overboard on this.
Manning betrayed his country and oath in a time of war
Was it really a time of war? Has war been declared? I'm not a lawyer, but if war hasn't legally been declared, then I don't think it could legally be a time of war, now could it?
There's no rule of law when the rule doesn't follow the law, but instead follows daily convenience and whims of those in power.
However, on abortion, I'm confident that Christ would oppose it. He stressed generosity to those in need, and would have been against the killing of the unborn. The pro-choice folks always focus on the rights of the mother, but I think Christ would favor the rights of the child-to-be.
Possibly. Or he might balance the needs of the mother and the needs of the unborn child. You know that there is balance possible in the abortion debate, don't you?
During the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the fetus is little more than a clump of cells, and absolutely anything can abort the pregnancy. A miscarriage is very likely in those first weeks. After 30 weeks, on the other hand, the baby can survive a premature birth. In fact, I think it's at about 26 weeks now, which makes me a bit uncomfortable about the 24-week limit for abortion in my country. I'd prefer moving the limit back to 17 weeks, but for now at least, there are medical reasons to have it at 24 weeks. (Some birth defects can't be detected until 20. weeks with current technology, but that technology might improve.)
Actually, we disagree. If a true Christian organization felt it's people needed coffee, they'd provide it to any and all who asked for it.
We've got coffee, tea and cookies after every service. Excellent idea, if you ask me.
The modern church is decidedly anti-Christian.
They dig way too deep into the Old Testament to find passages that support their prejudices and preach far more hate than Christ would ever tolerate. Have you seen the mega-churches with the Starbucks inside? Christ would positively kick ass were he to walk into one of those, and yet they flourish.
I essentially agree, but would also like to point out that this isn't all churches you're talking about. There are also a lot of churches do the right thing, or at least do a decent job of trying. That preach love instead of bigotry and commercialism.
I have read it. And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor.
You're making a mockery of it. Of course you shouldn't take other people's money. Why are you even suggesting that that is what this could be about? But Jesus did say that you should pay your taxes. And he also said that you should give everything you own (rather than a mere 10%) away to others. And not just your friends, or to people like you, but to complete strangers.
The software being open doesn't help you much when the hardware has been locked down. The EU needs to create a rule that every piece of hardware should be explicit about whether it's open or closed. Even when the majority is closed, we'll be able to find the few that are open and reward them by buying them.
Here, any supposed "Christian" only gets to be a card-carrying member if they hate gays, blacks and anyone even slightly left.
That's a pretty severe case of "reading a completely different bible than I do". My bible is all about loving people, including any sinners and enemies. It says stuff like: "Judge not, lest you be judged." And it's pretty radical left with all its giving to those less well-off, sharing with the community (some early churches were pretty communist in that regard), rich people having a pretty hard time getting into heaven, and overthrowing the order of those days. As for hating blacks, I have honestly no idea how anyone who does that can still call himself a Christian.
Christians are Christianity's biggest enemies. It's like Gandhi said: "If only Christians would follow the teachings of Christ, Christianity would be irresistible." (I'm paraphrasing really; can't remember the exact quote.)
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks.
That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed).
Note that you are only talking about some Christians here. Many Christians do not fit your description.
Aldenissin, I would venture to say that you are an anomaly in the Christian world.
He might be an anomaly among American Christians (many of them give me the impression of reading a completely different bible than I do), but I suspect even there he's not alone. In Europe, there are definitely many Christians who have no problem with people being naked in their own home (or even outside of it), or smoking marijuana. It's possible many are somewhat uncomfortable with it, but that doesn't mean they want to prohibit it.
Then again, I live in a country where marijuana is practically legal, despite a conservative Christian party having been permanently in power for over a century (with the exception of 8 years during the '90s).
Not every government throws journalists and dissenters in jail. There are still a few free countries left in the world, although their numbers are rapidly shrinking.
how is being Prime Minister equivalent to being dictator?
We're talking about Putin here. Have you noticed how nobody cares about Medvedev, and Putin is still the real leader of Russia, just like when he was still president?
No, they're subtly different. The US is a plutocracy, Russia is a kleptocracy. So in the US, corporations give money to politicians in order to buy power, whereas in Russia, politicians and corporations take money from the state in order to enrich themselves.
Because Russia is a big force in the world and actually matters?
Kleptocracy has little to do with communism, though. Except maybe that it might be a big force ensuring the failure of practical communism.