"Not that many centuries ago, across much of the world, usury—lending money at interest—was considered a serious crime, more serious than robbery, and was also classed as a mortal sin by Christian and Muslim religious authorities; it’s no accident that Dante consigned usurers to the lowest pit of the seventh circle of Hell. That’s been dismissed as a bit of primitive moralizing by modern writers, but that dismissal is yet another example of the way that contemporary industrial culture has ignored the painfully learned lessons of the past."
49 comments:
Do you think that you should change the title of this blog to 'quotes of a quoting Southlander'?
Looks like New Zealand is set to ignore History again embrace same sex marriage.
Isn't it humorous that this was posted by a blogger with druid in the name? Druids were known in history to be responsible for human sacrifices. Thank goodness we have not dismissed that painful lesson.
You don't like quotes, Anonymous? You don't like photographs either.
You're a curmudgeon, one with an ulcer and a bunion perhaps?
You may quote me on that and when I've found what I believe to be a photo of you and your afflictions, I'll post it for your pleasure for I know that curmudgeons derive enormous pleasure from their belly-aching.
Colin - New Zealand has a history of same-sex marriage? I didn't know that. Can you/will you expand on that?
What particularly do you object to with same sex marriage, if you don't mind my asking?
Anonymous - druids, like many other 'communities' have outgrown their human-sacrificial ways long ago, so it would be churlish to hold them to those historical behaviours. Somewhere along the line, your people will have done the same. Perhaps you have druids in your family tree? (it's a wee allusory joke, sorry to make it so obscure and have you anguish over it, if in fact you are.)
Robert,
@12.20pm. I don't mind quotes Robert. I was simply arecognising a growing trend.
I don't like photographs? Really? I am guessing you have mistaken me for another Anonymous? I like many of your photos.
Name calling? Not a very nice behaviour. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to someone else. I am not sure that recognising a behaviour trend deserves name calling?
Robert@12.29pm
So do we think that money lenders behave the same as they did back then when they were considered criminals? Surely regulation has helped? Or are we being churlish?
My people? Can you define that please? If you are going to level challenges at "my people" I better figure out which ones you are talking about.
Druids in my family tree? In my opinion it appears you are trying to make personal attacks on me. I am not sure why? I simply pointed out an element of irony in the name of the author. If I have offended you so to encourage apparent personal attacks I apologise. It was not my intention.
Anonymous
" Anonymous said...
Robert,
@12.20pm. I don't mind quotes Robert. I was simply arecognising a growing trend."
Quite right too, Anonymous. I've been referring to others and using their nicely-put expressions instead of droning-on in my own way, giving my readers some new colour and texture to ruminate on. point taken though.
"I don't like photographs? Really? I am guessing you have mistaken me for another Anonymous?"
Quite right, Anonymous. My jibe was aimed at Anonymous.
"I like many of your photos."
Well, I'm glad.
"Name calling? Not a very nice behaviour. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to someone else. I am not sure that recognising a behaviour trend deserves name calling?"
Indeed, Anonymous, I was assigning the 'curmudgeon' lable to Anonymous.
"Robert@12.29pm
So do we think that money lenders behave the same as they did back then when they were considered criminals? Surely regulation has helped? Or are we being churlish?"
In essense, Anonymous, yes. Regulation has helped, but the general principle has created the toxic fiscal atmosphere we now find enveloping us all. Global financial meltdown, anyone?
"My people? Can you define that please?"
Hardly. You could though.
"If you are going to level challenges at "my people" I better figure out which ones you are talking about."
Indeed.
"Druids in my family tree? In my opinion it appears you are trying to make personal attacks on me."
Not at all. I'd be proud to have them in mine. Why does the thought of having Druidic roots seem offensive to you?
"I am not sure why? I simply pointed out an element of irony in the name of the author. If I have offended you so to encourage apparent personal attacks I apologise. It was not my intention."
You've not offended me at all, Anonymous. Nor have I attacked you personally, as explained above. Fortunately for me, there's another Anonymous, indistinguishable from you, who I can sheet all blame to. If you'd tagged your comments at the end by signing off with a lable of your choice, this wouldn't happen. I don't mind what you do, but this regrettable identity-mixing-up is sure to happen again, given that you share a name with someone less adroit at thinking than your own good anonymous-but-sensitive self.
Thus far I have been the only Anonymous commenting on this post. I am not sure how your labelling could possibly be associated with another.
I think I have tried to humbly apologise and in return I get what I consider misdirection. For the purposes of comment and burying the hatchet, sure... I misunderstood. And hey I am modest enough to right my wrongs. I apologise, apparently I have also lodged incorrect accusations. Clearly you weren't talking to me at all.
All power to you Robert and good luck. I hope you get your man (or woman), and enjoy making friends on the way.
You're dreadfully misunderstood here, Anonymous, I concede. I can't think of any ways we can avoid mixing you with other commenters, can you?
Druids!
Wear a tall hat like a druid in the old days
Wear a tall hat and a tatooed gown
Ride a white swan like the people of the Beltane
Wear your hair long, babe you can't go wrong
Usury & human sacrifice, bah humbug.
Lovely!
Human sacrifice is but an 'e' away from humane sacrifice.
(I have several sickles, one of which has a handle made from a point of stag-antler. I've mistletoe growing here too, and nettles - ooooooh! * waves hands about in a mock-frightened manner)
I should have said,Joe,
"Mark my words", or
"Mark! My word!"
You're dreadfully misunderstood here, Anonymous, I concede.
Sorry, clearly I dont have the capacity to communicate an understanding.
I can't think of any ways we can avoid mixing you with other commenters, can you?
Why does a comment have to be associated with a person? Why is it that the context of a personality is required? Why can a comment simply be judged for the content? Would you rather judge the personality? If so that is sad.
"can't"
"can't", Anonymous?
Can't make head nor tail?
Can't progress an idea?
Can't sift the wheat from the chaff?
Very intriguing, your 'can't'!
I hope it wasn't a plea for help - "Can't...reach...the...door-handle..."
I can't tell Anonymous4:06, from Anonymous4:09.
Who could?
Impossible!
Sorry " cant" was a spelling correction. I thought it was obvious. I guess not.
Why does a comment have to be associated with a person?
In case you make a series of comments, of course.
Why is it that the context of a personality is required?
It's very obvious, Anonymous. Imagine if this blog was hosted by 60 people and every response can from a different one, but all under the name 'robertguyton' - confusing much?
"Why can a comment simply be judged for the content?"
See above. The discussion would lack cohesion and it would be impossible to ask a question of anyone, not knowing who to ask and who answered at any point. Surely you can see this, Stephen?
" Would you rather judge the personality? If so that is sad."
Personality-free commenting? How dull. That would lead nowhere and be meaningless. Is that what you seek, faceless, nameless, personality-less 'Anonymous'?
If each statement here had to be regarded as coming from a new person, it'd be like talking with someone suffering from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
Thankfully the church has stopped their demonisation of usury, along with a number of other quaint traditions. The inquisition and a few similar quaint traditions come to mind.
Interesting isn't it that where the christian west has grown and moved forward socially the muslim world that used to be the seat of knowledge and learning in the dark ages has gone backwards. Maybe there's something in that?
Paranormal
Perhaps the Church became beneficiaries of the system, paranormal, and ceased their opposition. That's usually the way.
@ Robert 6.12am
60 comments from Robert Guyton Clones. One comment is confusing for me. Sounds like Bruce was correct about genetic modification.
In my experience the only place where cohesion lacks is in character judgements, as you have demonstrated in a somewhat embarrassing way above. To be frank I think cohesion has nothing to do with assuming an identity. Cohesion lacks in the ability for readers to judge the anonymous. And to be honest I dont have a probelm with that. So many bloggers like to focus on the individual rather than the debate. There are endless examples in blogs. One famous statement by a blogger once said "You can only throw so many stones before it only becomes about throwing stones." Being anonymous is intended to reduce the personality targeting and keeping the discussion about the discussion.
In my opionion you can be as hostile as you want to me and use all the names in the world but my lack of idnetity does not make that ok or excuse it.
Now if I was not being pleasant that would be a different story. But I think you will find I have been pretty fair.
Anyway apparently this has been debated before and the argument has been called "trite". So moving right along...
Regarding money lenders you said:
In essense, Anonymous, yes. Regulation has helped, but the general principle has created the toxic fiscal atmosphere we now find enveloping us all. Global financial meltdown, anyone?
I am not sure who we blame? Is it the lenders or the consumers that seek the money out of greed. Considering it is the government/public that sets the rules for lending. Is it really the all the lenders fault that people take bigger and bigger risks?
Not their fault altogether, Anonymous. But their role is pivotal and indicative of a sick system. Some enlightened fellow must overturn their tables, and those of the likes of Key, Banks, Fay et al, and make way for a better system that does not create so many opportunities for exploitation of our fellow men and women. Thee are a number of good suggestions out there, on a way forward with this problem, but I'm no expert on them. They aren't too hard to find, however, if you were interested.
@ Robert 7.26pm
We now have a financial advisors act which has regulated how the lending systems sells money. In my opinion it is now hard to find financial advice on investment options. Many well trained and experienced experts are too scared offer opinions. I would go as far to say that I believe it has gone the other way. In the past people may have made choices on questionable advice. Now they make choices on no advice. There could be a whole lot more problems out there from people making uniformed choices.
Now days liability lies completely with the loan taker and as such they are more exposed to collapse.
It's interesting how people like Jesus when he is flipping over tables, but not so much on other issues of morality.
We live in a society that has cultural nihilism at it's heart- if people value something, devalue it, if people live according to long standing traditions, redefine those traditions.
It is the cultural and liberal elite that now rule the masses, and like every 'ruling class' throughout history, they are extremely arrogant and self serving.
They leave the next generation with nothing, not a damned scrap, despite how hard they try to scream "we're doing it for the good of all".
You can't have a stable sustainable society when so many people are hell bent on destroying it for there own selfish pleasures.
Anon @ 10.45. The underlying issue of then or now is that we have a woeful level of financial literacy in New Zealand.
In the case of the collapsed Finance companies are you suggesting the Finance company had/has sole liability as loan taker? Regretably too many individuals who 'invested' in the failed business model of finance companies are not sheeting the blame back to where it belongs.
Even with the criminal behaviour of a few who are responsible for misleading investors, in the vast majority of cases, individuals willingly gave money to organisations they had no understanding of simply because they offered a couple of points higher investment return. There was no understanding of the risk/reward balance. That is where we need to start.
No amount of legislation will stop it from happening all over again unless we have a far higher level of financial literacy.
Paranormal
RG - Yet again you miss the point. The banks did not directly prosper from the change. Luther and the protestant reformation changed that for all time.
Yet again your worldview has coloured your perception of the overall issue.
Paranormal
"Yet again your worldview has coloured your perception of the overall issue."
Is there any one whose worldview doesn't colour their perception of anything and everything?
Unless you know of somone, paranormal, your statement is a truism that adds nothing to any debate.
Selfish pleasures, Shunda?
Can you name one or two of those selfish pleasures that are being pursued by the cultural and liberal elite?
"
Even with the criminal behaviour of a few who are responsible for misleading investors, in the vast majority of cases, individuals willingly gave money to organisations they had no understanding of simply because they offered a couple of points higher investment return. There was no understanding of the risk/reward balance. That is where we need to start."
You'll have concerns around the 'mum and dad' MOM shareholders then para?
Robert, why you believe that it is only tories and hyper capitalists that are the problem is beyond me. You seem remarkably ready to turn a blind eye to certain sectors of society that are just as destructive.
I've seen this before Robert, in organised religion, us and them, good and bad, arbitrary judgements.
The Pharisees were pretty keen on turning a blind eye to certain behaviour, hence the actions of 'the Holy table tipper'. What's that saying again?, the whole "strain out a gnat, swallow a camel" thing?.
I see a lot of people trying to swallow camels, the imminent redefinition of a heterosexual tradition would be one very large camel I can spot.
But so long as the liberal elite are happy I guess, what can we change next? perhaps exchange up for down?
You are jumping the gun, Shunda, attributing beliefs to me without asking. Can you not answer a straight question?
Here it is again:
"Selfish pleasures, Shunda?
Can you name one or two of those selfish pleasures that are being pursued by the cultural and liberal elite?"
Surely you're not meaning that same-sex marriage is a "selfish pleasure"?!?
Or
are
you?
RG @12.12 - Shunda @ 12.35 has more eloquently put what I was indicating.
As a matter of interest your belief settings are a derivative of the pre reformation church of "the less you have the closer to god you are". The reason for that belief was the church was the direct beneficiary of the people’s guilt.
And yes I do have the same concerns for investors in MOM, but not for the reasons you might think. Individuals will be investing in hopefully sound businesses, but without the benefit of fully understanding their own situation.
For example someone who is so sold on Power Company ownership they mortgage the house to buy shares. If they have a high disposable income that may be a good idea. However…. You can take the rest from there I'm sure.
Otherwise the sale of state liabilities (with assets there are always liabilities) is a good idea. We have benefited from it greatly over the years. Stephen Franks has a few good examples, such as the sale of North Island forestry. Saved the country a fortune. In the Power area as soon as we get to a proper market, not Max Bradfords nightmare, New Zealanders can start paying the true price of generation. And it will be less than what we're paying now. It will also allow innovation to creep in.
I know you're normally against that RG, but what if it meant the Greens distributed generation policy was able to be activated? The possibilities of positive outcomes far outweigh the outcomes of your Nationalist tendencies.
Paranormal
Against innovation, paranormal?
What a cheap shot.
Wrong too.
Your own food production, para and the garden you manage to raise your own food - innovative or conventional?
Robert, you aren't listening to what I am saying, are you now moving to dismiss me as one of the "God hates fags" crowd?
Here it is again.
We live in a society that lives by the mantra "if you want it, you should have it", and this includes both 'things' and 'traditions'.
People that prescribe to such ridiculous self serving attitudes are trading away our future both materially and morally.
It has nothing to do with human rights, it is all to do with human wants and that is an entirely different issue to fundamental human "rights".
The same attitude pervades all the big issues of our times, we are drunk off the lust for 'things' and now we are selling our society down the road as well.
Think asset sales and how that makes you feel, then consider that maybe the same attitude manifests itself left of the divide as well.......
People want a tradition, Shunda?
Marriage isn't a tradition. It's a contract.
Contract, tradition, whatever, my point still remains valid.
The constant need to redefine, mix up, and confuse reality is destructive and unsustainable.
There is no difference between those that want to sell assets accrued over several generations and those that seek to redefine long standing traditions that underpin the basic security of our civilisation.
Both the same,selfish, destructive, and short sighted.
I see no progression in society, but a regurgitation of old failed ideas.
Remember that - perceived social progression = regurgitation.
Human history reads like a series of very long ground hog days.
Take a valid and noble ideal like human rights and soon enough it will be corrupted by 'human wants'.
Shunda - are you saying that 'conventional' man-woman marriage is reality and that homosexuals are attempting to confuse that reality?
"Long standing traditions that underpin the basic security of our civilisation"
I can imagine a patriarchal figure declaring the very same thing, 100 years ago, about the position of women in society. They're fluid things, Shunda, those traditions and rights.
Kiwipolitico does a good exploration of this issue, Shunda. have you read that yet?
"Those opposed to gay marriage see the outcome if it is legalized in zero or negative sum terms. Awarding the right to marry to homosexuals will directly and negatively impact on heterosexual marriage. The belief is that awarding gays the right to marry comes at the immediate expense of heterosexual marriages, and that something will be directly lost or detracted from the latter if the former is permitted. Worst yet, the situation could become collectively negative sum if gays are allowed to marry: both gays and straights will suffer losses as a result (this is usually seen in the “children need hetero parents” argument, but extends to the costs of awarding full rights to married gay couples when it comes to family-oriented taxation, insurance and health benefits). The bottom line is that awarding equal marriage rights to gays (as a sexual minority) will impose costs or losses on the sexual majority, and therefore should not allowed under the lesser evil principle because collectively it is a lose-lose proposition.
Those in favor of gay marriage see the issue in even or positive sum terms. They see gay marriage as taking nothing from nor adding to hetero marriage, or in the most optimistic view, enhancing the value of marriage as an institution by extending the franchise to those of same-sex persuasion who wish to monogamously commit to each other in the eyes of the state (I will leave aside issues about non-monogomous unions and plural marriages in order to make the first-order point). In this view gay marriage should be encouraged as it deepens the familial bases of social stability and is therefore a greater good for society as a whole. It is a win-win solution."
I wonder if there isn't something in shunda's musings RG. I do wonder why Gays want to get married when living in sin seems so much more popular with everyone these days and getting married doesn't.
And it seems so often that when something profound like the Archdruid's observations are put up for comment that comment seems to wander off onto the trivial
and it looks like Tongariro is brewing - certainly stirring if not brewing - that would add to our headlines - imagine Gerry Brownlee as Minister of earthquakes and eruptions - it adds another veneer to the whole concept of disaster having our current leadership managing natural disasters as well as social and economic ones
The problem with this debate is that it all to often turns into something nasty.
My position on this is much the same as wanting to protect an ancient old tree.
I love the tree as it is, others say it is old and outdated and needs to be replaced by a more 'modern' tree.
I like the tree the way it is.
Those that want to plant a modern tree could simply plant it near by.
No they cry, I am a bigot hater hell bent on denying the rights of others, it must be felled and replaced.
That's how I see it.
I can't see a single sign of 'nasty', Shunda. No one's called you a bigot hater or one of the "God-hates-fags" crowd.
Or did I miss something?
Your tree analogy doesn't fit, I reckon. I reckon the ancient old tree you love might have been loved from afar by people who were told they weren't allowed to love it. Now they're say that they'd like to be able to openly tree-love as well. How does that diminish your position?
Darkhorse - shifting plates, eh!
If we wonder why gays...best ask them, I reckon! Fancy wanting to marry! How conservative - gays aren't conservative...are they? Surely we know how they think...we just know!
They're devil-may-care, shiftless, flamboyant.
Must be. I saw them on Modern Family.
Mind you, they had adopted a child...
RG - good on you. Same as always, just dismiss an alternative view without due thought.
So you and I are both innovative with our own gardens and food production? Why is it then you are so blinkered when it comes to innovation on a larger scale? Can't you see that sale of the power utilities may actually be beneficial in breaking up the monopolistic 'market' and usher in more Green policy?
Though I think he's generally a tool, Morgan is right about the Greens being too hidebound if you're a Key example....
Paranormal
You must have watched the Morgan/Norman interview on Q&A, paranormal. I suppose we'll interpret the interaction differently, but I saw it as a tremendous boost for the Greens, despite Morgans seeming reservations. It seemed to me, he's grooming Russel for the role and was doing so by playing reluctant. It was not by chance that the two of them featured on the programme. Russel managed the whole thing very well. The panel praised him highly,to my mind.
Post a Comment