|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does religion live in the past?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think this is a valid criticism of our practices. We spend our time on things written an eon ago, and while playing forward in the sense of felt application to our present lives, we live with dead people, their opinions as sainted and blessed folk, but with their culture, prejudices, ideals, pedantism, and historical times. Do we do this too much? I think the case can be made. Should we not update and base our understandings on direct observation versus classical pronouncements? Less bible, more reasoned judgement?
[tangent]
I am riffing off reading about Nehemian Grew who was the secretary of the Royal Society in the 1680s, and his reaction against the renaissance humanists who denigrated current observation in favour of rediscovered opinions from antiquity. Grew, no apostate, thought that we should use our observational powers and judgement. The argument goes that we should not accept things by authority either as constituted by the Roman Catholic imprimatur (the official RC censor and vetter of books) or the 'correct' interpretation of what was biblically written (or else classically written).
[end tangent]
[ 25. July 2014, 00:21: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Certainly we should not accept things without examination, simply because they are old. If the medievals did this, though, we are today IMHO too prone to the opposite error--we tend to be ignorant of history and historical things (including the Bible) and instead try to reinvent everything from scratch.
Somebody somewhere (probably Lewis; it's always Lewis) pointed out that just as there are separate human cultures in space, there are separate cultures in time. Getting to know at least one other culture well in either time or space has this benefit: it inoculates you against the "spirit of this age," so fewer of your own beliefs and practices go unexamined because "it's always been that way." Cross-cultural exposure (here, historical exposure) means that you have to realize that in fact it's NOT always been that way, that there are other ways of thinking and being. And if the culture (here the ancient Jews and nascent Christians) is sufficiently far back in time, you may even be able to see the outworkings of their beliefs and choices and actions. In short, you are learning from other people's mistakes, rather than re-making them all yourself.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I prefer C. S. Lewis's view that we have a modern hubris that thinks all things modern are better than older things.
In the High Middle Ages, a view that the most ancient authorities were better prevailed.
As for the church, I would think those closer in time and relationships to Jesus know better about the Faith than some academic today.
[Crossposted with Lambed Chopped who makes some excellent points.]
[ 25. July 2014, 00:41: Message edited by: St. Punk the Pious ]
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
[tangent]
I am riffing off reading about Nehemian Grew who was the secretary of the Royal Society in the 1680s, and his reaction against the renaissance humanists who denigrated current observation in favour of rediscovered opinions from antiquity. Grew, no apostate, thought that we should use our observational powers and judgement. The argument goes that we should not accept things by authority either as constituted by the Roman Catholic imprimatur (the official RC censor and vetter of books) or the 'correct' interpretation of what was biblically written (or else classically written).
[end tangent]
Now for the history, which better historians than I can correct me on...
My understanding is that it wasn't the Renaissance humanists who did this, but rather the medievals. Their situation was like this: Imagine that you've survived the wreck of a great civilization (the Roman empire) and are trying to pick up the pieces and rebuild. Part of your toolkit is the random bits and pieces of Greek and Roman literature that survived the wreck--and these are pretty random in nature, as well as being very very few and far between. Still, they are all you have (besides the Bible and church fathers, I mean). You have a built-in respect for the written word because of the influence of Christianity.
What will you do with these pagan writers' survivals--chuck them out? Certainly not. They are precious remnants of the "good old days," which you never saw yourself, but you've heard of all your life, and your fathers before you. Will you rate them at their proper worth, even? The Wreck of Everything™ didn't spare books based on their worth. What you've got is a very mixed bag--but will you realize that? Or will you do what most people do after disaster--pick up the few surviving pieces and treasure them more than, realistically, they are worth?
That, in my understanding, is what the medievals did. They took a ratbag of ancient Greek and Latin texts, many incomplete, many worthless, and set about trying to reconcile them with Scripture. That didn't work too well, but they were nothing if not ingenious--and persistent, too. Then they built a culture on that foundation.
And THAT is what the Renaissance thinkers were reacting against--a culture where random ancient literary survivals had been elevated to the stature almost of Scripture, and had had something of a stifling impact on new learning.
You can see why I was taken aback to read that someone was accusing the Renaissance humanists of a position so unlike their own!
It's true they took a great interest in newly discovered or newly accessible texts (Erasmus, for example, with his Greek New Testament instead of sticking to the Vulgate etc). But that was part of a general curiosity and a desire to examine everything afresh for themselves--whether that be ancient texts, the human body, or the movement of the worlds. I haven't researched Grew, but suspect from your description he had more in common with the humanists he was condemning than either party would suspect. But it's easier to see those things from a historical distance.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I prefer C. S. Lewis's view that we have a modern hubris that thinks all things modern are better than older things. [...]
That would be hubris. Problem with Lewis is that he went to the other extreme, and failed to recognize our ability to learn from our mistakes. Evangelicals have virtually elevated him to the Trinity 'cause he used his rhetorical skill to defend their brand of antiquarianism.
Eustace Scrubb, the progressive grotesque served up in The Dawn Treader, speaks volumes about the Lewis worldview.
An idealistic conservative through and through.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
Christianity is a revealed religion. The summit of that revelation was contained in the person of Jesus Christ. All that was necessary to be known for the purposes of salvation was made known by the time that the last Apostle died. So far as the faith is concerned we have nothing new to expect and no higher or better revelation is possible, something I look at in my most recent blog.
The use of reason and the learning of new things is certainly to be recommended and is necessary not only as a positive good in itself but also as a means for Christians to engage with the world around them. Nonetheless it is a category error to assume that science or reason can lead us to a better place than the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Since God created time and stands outside it, it seems to me that we are committed to the belief that there is nothing particularly virtuous or relevant about being modern.
There's also nothing particularly special or virtuous about how things were done in the 1950s, the 1850s, the time of either Calvin or Aquinas or whatever.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My understanding is that it wasn't the Renaissance humanists who did this, but rather the medievals.
Actually it was far more true of the Renaissance humanists than of the medievals. The doctor who refused to believe in syphilis because it wasn't in Galen, and the Cardinal who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because it wasn't in Ptolemy were both humanistically trained.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
As I understand it, there is nothing in the Bible that warns against drug abuse. Alcohol abuse maybe, but can these be placed in the same class as khat, opium and tobacco? I'm fairly certain these existed in biblical times.
It's been modern society's responsibility to warn against those.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The reference to Grew and 'observational powers' reminds me of Francis Bacon, who recommended using the senses, and not taking Aristotle as the fount of all knowledge.
But this leads to scientific method, not to a theological understanding. It's true that scientific advances may impinge on theology, as with evolution, but they basically exist separately.
On another thread, there was reference to the ascension - is this taken literally (in a 3-tiered universe), or is it adapted to modern astrophysics? Certainly, many of the charming paintings of the ascension seem to have a physical rising, some with feet pointing down at the top of the frame. So heaven is up? Well, I don't think there is any up really, but maybe this doesn't matter in theological terms.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Byron;
quote:
Problem with Lewis is that he went to the other extreme, and failed to recognize our ability to learn from our mistakes.
I'm quite a Lewis nut, and this is not my experience of him. On the contrary, I've learned from his mistakes and used his own ideas to end up disagreeing with him or going beyond him, and have always felt from his expressed attitudes that he would have approved of me doing so.
And it should also be said that some of his conservatism was a bit tongue in cheek on his own part, as when he described himself to his new students at Cambridge as a dinosaur to be 'studied because there aren't many of us left', or words to that effect.
No, he was nowhere near an extra member of the Trinity; but when I disagree with him I know I've had to work at it!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That, in my understanding, is what the medievals did. They took a ratbag of ancient Greek and Latin texts, many incomplete, many worthless, and set about trying to reconcile them with Scripture. That didn't work too well, but they were nothing if not ingenious--and persistent, too. Then they built a culture on that foundation.
And THAT is what the Renaissance thinkers were reacting against--a culture where random ancient literary survivals had been elevated to the stature almost of Scripture, and had had something of a stifling impact on new learning.
You can see why I was taken aback to read that someone was accusing the Renaissance humanists of a position so unlike their own!
Not convinced. AIUI the humanists were concerned with returning 'ad fontes' - to the original texts. According to this view, reading commentaries on commentaries of Aristotle was worth less than reading Aristotle himself. From a modern perspective, though, this means rejecting all the development of Aristotle's thought that had taken place over the Medieval period.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Looking at wikipedia, Galileo went to school in a monastery and then to the University of Padua, which was a medieval scholastic foundation. I would speculate therefore that Galileo's upbringing was more medieval than that of his adversaries.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It was the Renaissance humanists. These folks eventually had to give way to those who did science or what passed for science per the above-thread references to Bacon etc.
The thread's issue interacts with the authoritarian approach to religion and what was thought true in all fields (though everything was called philosophy) before observation could overturn the authority. We see the same problems when authorities try to control information and science today*, but it is more difficult for them.
Don't we always look to historical revelation and assume there's little to be learned in religion other than expansion of the principles and what we accept as fact from those texts?
*[tangent]
We have in Canada, the current government firing scientists, closing labs and refusing to allow scientists to speak directly to media or anyone else to control, we believe, information about items they are politically committed to, such as environmental degradation due and human disease due to unbridled development of pipelines, oil and tar sands. They also reclassifed animals as not endangered, and stopped classifying rivers and lakes as navigable so mining and oil extraction can occur without the environmental impacts being noted. The control of information and what passes for truth in the internet age appears to be similar to what the past has wrought: promise of more access with authorities learning to control it.
[end tangent]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phin Aaronson
Apprentice
# 16721
|
Posted
And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13.52). We can't help but live in the past to a certain extent if we pay attention to scripture and to the practices of the church: old treasures. But Jesus would have us not to forget that there are new treasures, too. Could not the new treasures be opportunites and challenges to reinvigorate the old teachings so that we can reapprehend the power of the Gospel? For myself, I find that I need both the new and the old. The older I get the more I remember the past (is that living in it?) because I have more past to remember. But the new things I see in society and in the church help me to put the past into perspective in a way that I hope is helpful and instructive.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
I would like to point out a few circumstances that cause religion to be viewed as backwards facing and generally living in the past.
All Christian Churches and all other major religions are much much older than any individual. Naturally older people are in position of authority in just about any case. In almost every circumstance people with more experience are more likely to hold on to the old ways, or at least take a long time to consider new ways. Another issue is that churches don't want to be wrong. Change in policy is almost normal for a country but rarely acceptable for a Church. Everything there is derived from sacred texts' interpretations or tradition in which Church's followers believe. It is really hard to change any beliefs, especially without dividing the believers.
Let's also remember that since all major religions are hundreds of years old it is still remarkable that even with fairly conservative leadership the Churches of XXIst century are moderately liberal (at least in contrast with their history). Even with that being reluctant to adapt to the current trends may make anyone think that that religion is living in the past.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Welcome mrWaters to the Ship!
Please take the time to read our Ten Commandments and posting Guidelines, and feel free to say hello on the "Welcome Aboard" thread on the All Saints board.
Eutychus
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Can I tune the question a bit?: Does our Christianity reject the present? Does it take its inspiration too much from the past, e.g., scripture and tradition, and thus make itself irrelevant to most of our countries' people? What would it look like if it drew from the present?
I think we'd see an end to many church buildings. Many churches seem to have as their mission the upkeep of a building.
I think we would see a lot less didactic and performance (forgive me) aspects of church, and more participation, particularly discussion and application to problems people face. This is where people are today.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
I would like to point out a few circumstances that cause religion to be viewed as backwards facing and generally living in the past.
<snip>
Let's also remember that since all major religions are hundreds of years old it is still remarkable that even with fairly conservative leadership the Churches of XXIst century are moderately liberal (at least in contrast with their history). Even with that being reluctant to adapt to the current trends may make anyone think that that religion is living in the past.
I like your post. I see it's your first, so may I add a welcome.
[ 27. July 2014, 10:02: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, we live in the blood, soot and shit of the Bronze Age. The homophobia, the sexism, the racism. The redemptive violence as if Love had never been incarnate.
[ 27. July 2014, 12:13: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Mr. Waters has just stated the idea that I discussed on the other No Prophet thread. Religions are stuck with worship of tradition, and operate to perpetuate the bad things of the past, because they can't accept change without being beaten into it, whatever enlightened view their founding person(s) may have had.
This tends to mean that, in an age of increasing communication, the religious groups become viewed as the bastions of corruption and immorality, exactly opposite to where their principles tell them to be.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I wonder if we're getting things out of proportion. Certainly you can identify Bad Things in Christian history that never should have happened and that shouldn't be continued; but is the bulk of the Faith in that category? I really don't think so. If you consider Christianity's contributions to science, medical care, education, human rights, etc., I think it's fairly obvious that speaking generally, Christianity has been a tremendous force for good in the world over its two thousand year history. And if you don't want to attribute that to Christianity in particular, you'll still have to put it down to wisdom hard-earned in the past--which we really don't want to pitch overboard. Ignoring the majority judgements of humanity down through history is rarely wise.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Can I tune the question a bit?: Does our Christianity reject the present? Does it take its inspiration too much from the past, e.g., scripture and tradition, and thus make itself irrelevant to most of our countries' people? What would it look like if it drew from the present?
I think we'd see an end to many church buildings. Many churches seem to have as their mission the upkeep of a building.
I think we would see a lot less didactic and performance (forgive me) aspects of church, and more participation, particularly discussion and application to problems people face. This is where people are today.
I really like this question. Can I answer anecdotally, from personal experience? (Yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data
![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
For many years (and lo, even now) we've been "running" (?!?) a church that is about as mismatched with the culture as they come. I mean, we have the usual ancient vestments, chalice and paten, fancy paraments on the altar, and communal singing/speaking such as is basically never found in any other part of the target culture (Vietnamese and now Americanized). To top it off, the church has an obvious Western heritage, which totally shows up in the music as we've not yet been blessed with an indigenous composer, and this for people from Southeast Asia. And virtually all of them brand new converts from ancestor worship! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
So why did the people come--and keep coming, and thrive? Only one answer (besides the supernatural, "the Holy Spirit did it". Humanly speaking I'd put it down to the fact that no matter how bizarre the setting, music, or activities might have seemed to them--they found love there. They found a community that cared about them, that helped out with practical things like finding them furniture and clothing, that shared food and housing space, that found ways to get them English teaching and immigration help and someone to interpret at the hospital at 3 o'clock in the morning. (they found plenty of fights, too, but that's no surprise to anybody).
The love--felt, practical, evident love--was enough to overcome all the weirdness of being a Vietnamese immigrant convert in a Germanic Lutheran church. Nothing else would have done it. And no program without it would have succeeded.
Jesus was right (duh) when he said, "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." If we get that right, it seems we can be as irrelevant as we please and nobody much will care.
ETA: And the people STAYED, even those who moved to other states, even those I thought didn't have a shred of faith and were basically rice Christians (God forgive me). Why should they remain faithful? We're not even in the picture anymore. But there they are, in California and Ohio and the outskirts of Missouri. I can't deny the Gospel took root.
[ 28. July 2014, 00:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
I tried to identify mechanisms which cause our religions to be considered as out of touch with modern times. Christians worship the past, however at the same time prepare for the future life. Reluctance to change is often deeply connected to the past. All Churches made mistakes in the past for which they paid dearly. Each change is always carefully considered. Those considerations may take a long time for an individual, however it is merely a second compared to history of the Churches. Let's remember that there were more than enough of misguided trends in human thought. It is often hard to distinguish which trends to follow and which not to follow.
Modern communication makes everything more complicated and often dangerous. On the internet there are probably millions of web pages dedicated to one religion and certainly all of them tell a little different story. Different priests and believers have a little different ideas and it is almost impossible to control the message even in as centralized organization as the Catholic Church. Additionally, people are more likely to remember the most radical opinions (the vocal minority) since they are usually the most recognizable.
All this creates perception of a religion living in the past when it tries its best to adapt to modern times. However it is really hard for organizations older than oldest countries on earth. So I think my answer to the question in the title is that religion tries not to, however because of the reluctance to change it often ends up doing so for some time (at least in public eye).
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think this is a valid criticism of our practices. We spend our time on things written an eon ago, and while playing forward in the sense of felt application to our present lives, we live with dead people, their opinions as sainted and blessed folk, but with their culture, prejudices, ideals, pedantism, and historical times. Do we do this too much? I think the case can be made. Should we not update and base our understandings on direct observation versus classical pronouncements? Less bible, more reasoned judgement?
[tangent]
I am riffing off reading about Nehemian Grew who was the secretary of the Royal Society in the 1680s, and his reaction against the renaissance humanists who denigrated current observation in favour of rediscovered opinions from antiquity. Grew, no apostate, thought that we should use our observational powers and judgement. The argument goes that we should not accept things by authority either as constituted by the Roman Catholic imprimatur (the official RC censor and vetter of books) or the 'correct' interpretation of what was biblically written (or else classically written).
[end tangent]
This topic is conflating two different matters.
1) Are religious groups too backward-looking?
2) The place of reason in spiritual life.
There is nothing new about reason having a place in our spiritual life.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I'd like to back Lamb Chopped here. We are in a similar picture, albeit without the immigrant feature being strong.
Take a small Victorian church building, in which nothing could change, because...old, I guess. Finances dictated less availability of priests, and finally participation in a team ministry involving four churches.
But the congo decided to enjoy the time being, and stopped worrying about the money. Started looking outwards - "street" work, including meals, youth clubs as a joint venture with (gasp!) the secular Boys and Girls Club (who did manage to find two unemployed Baptist youth ministers to run the thing), Dresses for Haiti, Food Bank,... and, suddenly, a slowly-growing congo and a faster-growing bank balance, despite the increase in "benevolent" expenses. There are "outsiders" funneling benevolent funds through us, because the local Baptists don't do what we do.
But we stick with the (Canadian) BAS for most services, because no-one wants to argue about that sort of thing. The service emphasises God, rather than "me, me, me". The music has finally got past the Greatest Hits of 1832: organ music on CD (karaoke?), a violinist (when she isn't preoccupied with two new kids) and once a month an older organist on the Hammond (adequate playing, but he enjoys it and so do we)
So, older forms, still have pews, a lot of older music (the singable stuff anyway - no choir as an excuse to just watch), a very participative congo - we may have a dozen taking an active part out of 25 in the room - and, to be marvelled, four babies in three years in a congo of average age above 60.
IOW, meet the needs/hopes of the people and the rest will follow. The past mixes appropriately with the present/future, if one doesn't get too demanding of trivia (as I think Queen Elizabeth 1 said)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
