|
(top) |
VoxClamantis.nl |
| Home - Funny stories - Religion - Politics - Science - Sex - Life - Pictures - Cartoons - Links - Contact |
| Algemeen (top) | |
|
- |
“Mensen hebben recht op hun eigen meningen, niet op hun eigen feiten.” “People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Amerikaans senator, 1927-2003 |
|
-
|
Een dienstweigeraar verscheen eens voor de commissie Gewetensbezwaren en kreeg de gebruikelijke onzin voorgelegd: “Je loopt met een geweer op een smal pad. Links hoge rotsen, rechts een diep ravijn. Voor je verschijnt een indiaan met pijl en boog. Het is de een of de ander. Wat zou je doen?”
De dienstweigeraar zegt: “ik klim in het touw.” De commissie zegt: welk touw? Waarop de dienstweigeraar zegt: welke indiaan?” Interview met Maarten Doorman VN 24-4-2004, blz. 22 A conscientious objector came before the Commission Conscientious Objections and was confronted with the usual nonsense: “you walk with a gun on a narrow path. Left high rocks, right a deep ravine. In front of you there shows up an Indian with a bow and arrow. It’s you or him. What would you do?” The conscientious objector says: “I climb in the rope.” The Commission says: “Which rope?” On which the conscientious objector says: “Which Indian?” |
|
- |
Proudhon has given us a
description of the state's domestic “inconveniences”: “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” P. J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294, with some alterations from Benjamin Tucker's translation in Instead of a Book (New York, 1893), p. 26. |
| Nederlandse politiek (top) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- |
|
|
- |
Regeringsvorming 2010: meten met 2 maten (top) |
| Voetnoot Dries Een vriend vertelde mij dat zijn vader met de dood bedreigd was, omdat hij op tv iets over Wilders had gezegd. Vermoedelijk lezen mensen die doodsbedreigingen sturen geen kranten. Dries van Agt, die gisteren op de opiniepagina van de Volkskrant de ophanden zijnde regering van VVD, PVV en CDA probeerde te torpederen, hoeft niet bang te zijn. Als ik aan het machiavellisme in Nederland denk, denk ik aan Dries. Van Agt is een man die het humanisme belijdt, maar aan wie desondanks duidelijk te merken is dat hij het jammer vindt dat de inquisitie voorbij is, omdat hij het zo aardig zou hebben gedaan als grootinquisiteur. Vreemd is dat hij doet alsof de kiezers van de PVV niet wisten waarop zij stemden. Wie meent dat er in Gaza met Hamas gepraat moet worden omdat ze democratisch gekozen zijn, zou ook de PVV een kans moeten geven. Arnon Grunberg VK 17-8-2010, blz.1 Geachte redactie: Van Agt 2 Was het niet dezelfde Dries van Agt die vond en nog steeds vindt dat er met Hamas gesproken moet worden, omdat deze fundamentalistische partij democratisch gekozen was? En was het niet ook Van Agt die gezegd heeft dat deze kiezers dus serieus genomen moeten worden? Het partijprogramma van de PVV is, vergeleken bij het handvest van Hamas (waarover we nog nooit een kritische noot van Van Agt gehoord hebben), een braaf program. Gek toch dat Van Agt zo selectief is en blijkbaar een groot deel van de Nederlandse kiezers niet serieus neemt, ongeacht of je het daar nou mee eens bent of niet. Het lijkt wel of Van Agt nog steeds niet doorheeft dat de CDA de grote verliezer van de verkiezingen was en de PVV de grote winnaar. Marco Overmeer, Amstelveen VK 17-8-2010, blz.21 |
|
|
Beatrix
+ homo's |
|
Milieu:
In de file staan |
|
|
Milieu:
De aarde kan wel voor zichzelf zorgen |
|
|
198
Methods of non-violent action |
| Homohuwelijk / Gay marriage (top) | |
|
- |
Homohuwelijk
bestaat niet in Nederland, alleen het huwelijk van twee personen: “1. Een huwelijk kan worden aangegaan door twee personen van verschillend of van gelijk geslacht. 2. De wet beschouwt het huwelijk alleen in zijn burgerlijke betrekkingen.” Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 1, Artikel 30 |
| Gay
marriage
does not exist in The Netherlands, only marriage between two persons: “1. A marriage is a covenant between two persons of different or same sex. 2. The law sees marriage only in it's civil bearings.” Dutch Civil Law, Book 1, Article 30 |
|
|
- |
“De bepaling dat ambtenaren van de burgerlijke stand met bezwaren tegen het
homohuwelijk die niet hoeven te sluiten, is afzichtelijk. Fraaie gemeenschapszin is dat: samen werken, samen leven, maar niet met homo’s. Als discriminerende types bij de overheid de dienst mogen uitmaken, blijkt het motto van Balkenende IV je reinste gezwam.” Nausicaa Marbe VK 10-2-2007, blz.17 over Regeerakkoord 2007 |
|
- |
Alleen maar sex |
|
- |
Alternatives
for marriage What seems incontestable, however, is that empowering a bunch of competitors cannot do marriage any good. Rauch page 53 |
|
- |
Equal before the law
(top) In effect, he is saying that marriage is defined not by the vows (homosexuals can take them) or by devotion and fidelity (homosexuals are capable of both) or even by children (many heterosexuals cannot or do not have them, and some homosexuals do), but by its exclusion of homosexuals. Marriage is a club defined simply by who cannot join; its very essence is discrimination against same-sex applicants. This, I submit, is a dangerous way to define marriage, because in practice it is headed for a collision with the five most important words in the American social contract: "All men are created equal." Equal, here, does not mean the same. Yes, men and women are different (on average). Yes, male-female, male-male, and female-female marriages would differ (on average - although I expect the differences within the three groups would often be greater than the differences between them). Equal means equal before the law. Rauch page 95-96 |
|
- |
Sex, love, and marriage form integrated lives
(top) Sex, love, and marriage go together to form integrated lives and integrated unions. A marriage which cannot satisfy the heart and flesh is not a marriage which is likely to work. If I belabor the point, it is because some same-sex-marriage opponents really do say, "Look, marriage is about children, not love, and if homosexuals want to marry, let them just find someone of the opposite gender and skip the sex." Never mind the cruelty of pretending to love someone so he or she will marry you, or the crassness of forming a marriage as a kind of loveless business arrangement. Never mind the irony of hearing conservatives insist that gay men should not be allowed to marry because they will cheat on each other, only to hear them suggest in the very next breath that gay men marry women whom they will almost inevitably cheat on. … The core problem here is that no one would ever dream of telling heterosexuals they could marry only people they did not love. It would be insane. Yet that is the position in which homosexuals now find themselves. Rauch page 97 |
|
- |
Love of heterosexuals better than ours?
(top) I have to say, … , that we homosexuals get a bit tired of being assured by heterosexuals that their loves and lives and unions are "in every way" better than ours. Rauch page 99 … but suppose, for the sake of argument, that heterosexual unions are in some important sense preferable. The law's job is not to punish the disadvantaged by excluding them but to help them make the most of their lives, or at least to give them the same benefit of the doubt which is accorded everyone else. Rauch page 101 |
|
- |
Problem with gay marriage
(top) … the real problem with gay marriage isn't with marriage at all, but with gays. Was prejudice masquerading as reason? One option, of course, is just to reply, "By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman, and that's that." But that serves only to answer the question "Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to marry?" by replying, "Because I said so." (Or "Because God said so.") To their chagrin, opponents of same-sex marriage were being told they needed to do better. Since 1996, to their credit, they have done better, and they have found a lot to say about both marriage and homosexuality. Again and again, however, they run into the same problem. Given the way marriage is socially practiced and legally structured in the United States, most theories which exclude homosexuals from marriage also exclude many heterosexuals including many heterosexuals who are happily married. Rauch page 105 |
|
- |
Possibility of procreation
(top) Their real position is that the possibility of procreation defines marriage when homosexuals are involved, but not when heterosexuals are involved. To put the point more starkly, sterility disqualifies all homosexuals from marriage, but it disqualifies no heterosexuals. So the distinction is not pro-procreation (much less pro-children) at all. It is merely antihomosexual. Rauch page 112 … by locating the essence of marriage in the one type of sex which homosexuals cannot have, they finally manage to draw a line which includes all straight unions in the proper domain of matrimony, while excluding all gay ones. If they have to trivialize marriage in order to save it from the homosexuals - so be it! Rauch page 117 The reason the "procreative-type sex" view gets any hearing at all today is historical. As E. J. Graff explains in What Is Marriage For?, Christianity, when it came along, was unusual in its sexual asceticism. Judaism, for example, regards pleasure-seeking sex as a good thing, even an obligation which a man owes to a woman, provided that the sex takes place only in marriage and that it supplements but does not supplant procreative sex. (The early rabbis may have figured that pleasure-seeking spouses would have more babies. No dummies, those rabbis.) Rauch page 117 For somebody raised Jewish, as I was, this whole sex-must-be procreative rigmarole seems nothing more than a sectarian curiosity: something which Catholics have every right to believe but which need not detain anybody else, and which today even most American Catholics probably do not accept. It embodies nothing more than the theology of one religion, and it depends for its coherence on a belief in miracles (but if God could miraculously bring forth a baby from a sterile heterosexual couple, why not from a homosexual one? - oh, never mind). Rauch page 118 In Arizona, for example, first cousins are allowed to marry only if both are older than sixty-five or if the couple can prove to a judge "that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce." (So much for marriage's being about procreation. Here is a state invoking sterility as a condition for marriage!) Rauch page 178 |
| (top) |
|
Equality
/ reciprocity (top) During a recent contest in east London, the candidate for the new Respect party - a young Muslim lawyer - was chided by his co-religionists for sharing a platform with homosexuals. But Abdurahman Jafar held his ground: ”We want equality for Muslims and we would seem insincere if we didn’t stand together with other minorities who face discrimination.” The Economist 24-6-2006, page 34, special report Islam, America and Europe |
|
| (top) |
| Family
cornerstone of human society? (top) The foremost breeding place of the ideological atmosphere of conservatism is the compulsive family. Its prototype is the triangle: father, mother, child. While the family, according to conservative concepts, is the basis, the "nucleus" of human society as such, the study of its changes in the course of historical development and of its social function at any given time reveals it to be the result of definite economic constellations. Thus, we do not consider the family the cornerstone and basis of society, but the product of its economic structure […]. Reich 1 page 71 The political function of the family, then, is twofold: 1. It reproduces itself by crippling people sexually. By perpetuating itself, the patriarchal family also perpetuates sexual repression with all its results: sexual disturbances, neuroses, psychoses, perversions and sex crimes. 2. It creates the individual who is forever afraid of life and of authority and thus creates again and again the possibility that masses of people can be governed by a handful of powerful individuals. Reich 1 page 79 |
|
| (top) |
| Israel | |
|
- |
Double standards? (UN resolutions) The Economist October 12th 2002 |
|
- |
Vriend van Israel Nausicaa Marbe VK 8-6-2007 |
|
- |
Steun Israëls optreden tegen Hamas Nausicaa Marbe VK 2-1-2009 |
|
- |
Israel moet zichzelf mogen verdedigen Amanda Kluveld en René Cuperus VK 3-1-2009 |
| (top) |
| Ontwikkelingshulp / Development aid | |
|
- |
Geef een man een
vis en hij heeft een dag te eten, leer hem vissen en hij heeft z'n hele
leven te eten. Chinese zegswijze Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Chinese Proverb |
| (top) |