Members of the Discussion Group who have a command of the German
language may be interested in the 26 Aug 1994 issue of Die Zeit, the
German weekly, also distributed in this country (153 South Dean Street,
Englewood, NJ 07631-3513). Under the title Der Denkmalkrieg, their
correspondent Reiner Luyken describes the recent and on-going events
about the attempted removal of the equestrian statue of the Hungarian
Renaissance King Matthias Corvinus from the central square of Kolozsvar,
now called Cluj-Napoca, Romania, by the local authorities.

The lengthy article quotes Liviu Medrea, a prominent member of the PRNE,
the party in power in Romania, about the statue as follows: "The
equestrian statue, to which the Hungarians are attached, represents
Matthias Corvinus, their greatest king. But, this greatest Hungarian king
was Romanian. This should not surprise you, if you study Hungarian
history, the true, not the falsified one, since then you will find a
paradox. The greatest Hungarians in Hungary are all "Hungaricized".
Their greates poet was a Serb, their national hero a Slovak and their
greatest humanist a Romanian. As far as the statue is concerned, the
memorial contains a lie. One of the flags, which as a symbol of conquest
lay at his feet, is the Moldovanian one. In reality, the Moldovanians,
his Romanian tribesmen, defeated him at Baja. Blessed by an arrow, he
sought to escape. The arrow was in his (male parts) so that on this
occasion he lost his manhood....."

The statement speaks volumes about those in power in Romania.

Also, the same issue of Die Zeit has an article "Wie das Tor Aufging",
relating the events of the opening of the Iron Curtain in Hungary. There
are references to Gyula Horn and a Horn autobiography published in
German, "Freiheit, die ich meine", Hamburg, 1991.

In article >, 
writes:
> George Antony writes:
>
>> I have no latin dictionary handy, but 'korifeus' is used in Hungarian
>> intellectual slang to denote a high authority (in the moral or knowledge
>> sense  rather than an institutional figure).  I suppose the Latin spelling
>> would be 'coripheus' or somesuch, but it may well have originated in Greek
>> by the sound of it.
>
> Thank you.  My nagyszo1ta1r confirms you.  It gives "leader, chief" as the
> English; says it's from the Greek for bellwether.
>
> --Greg

I think the correct English spelling is Coryphaeus, coryphaean.
French spelling Coryphee, original Grek spelling Koruphaios.
It the old Grek theater, koruphaios was the chief of the chorus.
Today, it's the name of the function of the No.2 in the hierarchy
in the corps of the ballet of Opera de Paris.

Roman Kanala

In HUNGARY#69,  writes:
>>   Just because religion might be useless to you (and me) does not mean that
>>it is without use.  In other words perhaps the majority (not the moral
>>majority) of the human race needs some sort of religion.  Not everyone can
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>reason and think in a logical manner.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not everyone but hardly everyone except the insanes.

I'm afraid you are not right. Of course, we usually believe that we
think and act logically - but it is not quite true. In most cases, we
don't know why we are _really_ doing or thinking a particular thing,
and in many cases, we find out logical reasons for doing something
just _after_ we did it... If you are interested in the question, I
recommend you to read some books about social psychology. It helps
one to get rid of many illusions...

>>In fact most people can't.  Most people
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>are ignorant, just look at the people they put in office.  Just look at the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>music they put on top 40.  Just look at the books that fill the bookstores.
>>The fastfood joints that take over Paris and Budapest.  People are in general
>,
>>stupid.  "There is a sucker born every minute."-PT Barnum
>>    These people need religion.  They can't think.  They can only regurgitate
>>(yes, I know I spelled that wrong...just because I am illiterate, does not
>>mean I am stupid, does it?) what they hear on the radio, on the TV, and in
>>their church halls... And perhaps on Internet as well....
>
>They are not! You have listed above are true but the reason of it isn't
>people's ignorant. The reason is the power of money. It makes people to
>become into well manipulatible mass.(see: TV... etc ) They/We need
>                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>religion to save them from regurgitation, and to keep human dignity.
>^^^^^^^^
>To see each other not only somebody else but a person...

Does it mean that the people in poorer countries (e.g. Hungary) are
wiser than citizens of richer states as e.g. the Western European
countries? Or even that poor people are seeing more clearly than rich
ones? I doubt... Please write me details about the base of your
opinion.

>>Society needs
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>believers in order to function.  Without the masses buying into the christian
> ^^^^^^^^^
>>work ethic, nothing would get done (for nothing).......marc
>
>I agree with you.

Me too... just would like to add a remark: in my opinion it is not a
question of christianity. You find more or less the same situation
anywhere regardless of ideology or religion. In any age, country
or system, most of the people needs to be told what to think and what
to do (meanwhile they believe strongly that they have their own
thoughts and will :-( ). They make society. The very few who are not
satisfied with it and try to find their own answers are usually not
welcome in any kind of society...
Pe'ter

Roman Kanala writes

> >> I have no latin dictionary handy, but 'korifeus' is used in Hungarian
> >> intellectual slang to denote a high authority (in the moral or knowledge
> >> sense  rather than an institutional figure).
> >
> > Thank you.  My nagyszo1ta1r confirms you.  It gives "leader, chief" as the
> > English; says it's from the Greek for bellwether.
>
> I think the correct English spelling is Coryphaeus, coryphaean.
> French spelling Coryphee, original Grek spelling Koruphaios.
> It the old Grek theater, koruphaios was the chief of the chorus.
> Today, it's the name of the function of the No.2 in the hierarchy
> in the corps of the ballet of Opera de Paris.

Aha!  The plot thickens.  My friendly Merriam-Webster derives coryphaeus,
(through Latin) from the Greek koryphe, summit; and as its 2nd definition
says "the leader of a party or school of thought".

So, how did Orsza1gh La1szlo1 land on bellwether?  Greek scholars, answers
please.  :-)


--Greg

Adriano P. Palma writes

> it is in the critique of Feuerbach

No, the *Theses on Feuerbach* isn't it.

It is however the source of  The philosophers have only *interpreted*
the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to *change* it.


Drum roll, please...

 From the introduction to *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's
Philosophy of Right*, 1844;

                                ***
        The basis of irreligious criticism is:  *Man makes religion*,
religion does not make man.  In other words, religion is the self-
consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found
himself or has already lost himself again.  But *man* is no abstract
being squatting outside the world.  Man is *the world of man*, the state,
society.  This state, this society, produce religion, a *reversed world-
consciousness*, because they are *a reversed world*.  Religion is the
general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in
a popular form, its spiritualistic *point d'honneur*, its enthusiasm, its
moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground for consolation
and justification.  It is *the fantastic realization* of the human essence
because the *human essence* has no true reality.  The struggle against
religion is therefore mediately the fight against *the other world*, of
which religion is the spiritual *aroma*.

        *Religious* distress is at the same time the *expression* of real
distress and the *protest* against real distress.  Religion is the sigh
of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is
the spirit of a spiritless situation.  It is the *opium* of the people.

        The abolition of religion as the *illusory* happiness of the
people is required for their *real* happiness.  The demand to give up
the illusions about its condition is the *demand to give up a condition
which needs illusions*.  The criticism of religion is therefor *in embryo
the criticism of the vale of woe*, the *halo* of which is religion.

        Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so
that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that
he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.
                                ***

Heady stuff, eh?

--Greg

Greg writes:

> Aha!  The plot thickens.  My friendly Merriam-Webster derives coryphaeus,
> (through Latin) from the Greek koryphe, summit; and as its 2nd definition
> says "the leader of a party or school of thought".

> So, how did Orsza1gh La1szlo1 land on bellwether?  Greek scholars,
answers
> please.  :-)

I think it is simple:
coryphaeus = any leader or chief (including that of the chorus)
coryphee = ballet dancer, (including the lead)
Now if we take the belle of the ball and the leader's major occupation,
which is whether to do something or not, you get bellewhether, which then
simplifies to bellwether. Or more seriously the bellwether is the lead
sheep (generally a male or wether) which leads the flock. From this we get
to the leader of the flock. IMHO it is a very appropriate conversion to
head politicans in many many places not speaking about their followers for
the time being. No wonder Orszagh got the most appropriate context when he
used it in his dictionary. Some folks are more intuitive than we think.

Regards,Jeliko.
PS Sorry for the original misspelling, but look where it got us. :-)

I've just started looking at my mail on this topic, after 2 weeks
away from school, so I'll start my responses with one on the supposed
equivalence between religion and hopelessness.

What you all need to remember is the fundamental faith behind each
respective religion, and to consider what it teaches INDEPENDENT
of the culture you were raised in.  For example, one of the major
points of contention is on sexual behavior.  Most of us in the West,
or at least the US, were raised watching people in relationships on
tv where casual sex was the norm.  I cannot remember one tv program
in which dating couples did not end up in the sack in at least one
episode.  When considering such conflicting ideas, especially
when there are cultures which share your religion but not your
views on moral issues, you have to try, thougth it is hard, to
remove yourself from your culture and try to understand what the
religion teaches, since religion in it's pure form is independent
of culture.  You can see this when considering that Europe before
Christianity consisted of many pagan societies, in which things like
killing and survival-of-the-fittest was the law.  Prudish behavior
in Europe only came about after religion, and thus formed the
cultures.  The religion is not correct because of the culture - the
has the correst values because of the religion it follows.

As far as the sinful or selfish behavior of some religous people
throughout history,  they are to be ridiculed for sure, but  do
not lose faith because of them.  Things like the Catholic Church
in Hungary treating relics of St. Istvan as if they have the right
to deny access to the public, that is shameful (I'm thinking of the
reports made previously that viewing of St. Istvan's hand was in
some cases limited to invited guests, and that the cost of admission
was steep by the living standards of local people, if these reports
were accurate), or of the mention made that the Church recieved
land from the Communists which was takes from peasant farmers, again
if those reports were accurate, or of medieval "indulgences".  But
do not lose sight of the teachings.

Christianity is not a democracy, but an all or nothing package.  What
can be discussed is the correct interpretation and translation of
what God and Jesus said.

If you disagree with something that a religion teaches, do not argue that
you think they are wrong because of values taught be current cultural
trends.  Argue based on what you have taken the time to study.

Paul Gelencser

CHarles wrote:

>35, but that I'm sorry I thought that.  It only matters because the rules are
>different for people after 35.


What rules - sorry for my denseness (density?).

Paul

One more variation on the 2 Hungarians, Jews, etc., and 3 opinions--
Why, if there are only two Jews stranded on an island, are there three
synagogues?  Easy--one Jew goes to one synagogue, the other Jew goes to
the second synagogue, and the third synagogue is the one that neither Jew
would be caught dead in.

Happy (Jewish) New Year to all/Le shanah tovah tikateyvu!

Sziaztok,
Be1la

Subject: A monarchy?
From: Norbert Walter, 
Date: 27 Aug 94 21:52:23 GMT
In article > Norbert Walter,
 writes:
>Eva Durant wrote:

> > ...the monarchy in UK has ancient privileges unknown to most...
>
>    Unknown to most except you and your friends who are so enlightened
by the
>tabloids, right?

the royal family is exempted from taxation and is publicly supported.
constitutionally, the monarch rules and is also ex officio the head of
the
church of england. parliament only advises the sovereign.

that is just a sample of some of the encient privileges enjoyed by
british royalty.

>
> > ...(e.g. equal opportunity laws outruled for palace employees)...
>
>    Totally meaningless.  The United States Congress frequently exempts
itself
>form legislation that it passes...

the united states congress is hardly pertinent to british royalty. in any
event, membership of congress is a matter of popular vote, not an
accident of birth.

>
>    I know there was some controversy in the recent past concerning the
>appointment of an Englishman rather than an Australian to the post of
>governor-general,

there has not been such controversy about who was appoiunted as
governor-general recently. the appointment is usually in accordance to the
"candidate" proposed by the governement of the day. governors general in
the last twenty years or so have been zelman cowan, william hayden, john
kerr, paul hasluck, all eminently hustralian. i do not know which
englishman you have in mind and when --- admittedly i was absent from
australian for over ten years.

> but I've never heard of this Whitlam "affair."

> try november 11th, 1975.

>
> > ...they can in fact choose the prime minister by royal prerogative.
>
>    Yes, to some extent that is true.  During the 50s and early 60s, the
Queen
>intervened several times to keep R. A. Butler from the prime
ministership,
>usually employing the counsel of non-officials.  However, I have three
>questions to pose to you concerning this:  (1) why is this so different
from
>non-official consultation carried out in other countries
>(Nixon advising Clinton on foreign policy, the Democratic Party
>billionaires' club hand-picking Clinton in 1990 to be the Party's
>candidate in 92, etc.),

one difference is that whoever picked clinton to be the candidate, he did
have to be endorsed by the electorate. when he selects a member of cabinet
or supreme court judeg, there is a house committee hearing (or whatever
the technical term is). he cannot act autocratically. he can be impeached.
the queen is above all of this. he does not determine who does what in
congress, or the senate or in the
various committees. the queen appoints ministers, without necessarily
subjecting her appointment to parliamentary approval.

>(2) given the democratic system in the UK, do you not
>belive that an unpopular "royal choice" would be changed through
democratic
>processes,


it cannot be without royal assent.

 (3) if democratic change would not be possible due to "cute"
>laws (as you put it), wouldn't the British populace be in the the
streets to
>demand change following appointment of an unpopular PM?

no not at all.  john major, by all polls, is the least popular prime
minister ever. where are the demonstrations? margaret thatcher never
received as high a propoortions of the valid votes cast in her landslide
victories as jaruzelski did in the election he lost or the sandinistas
in the election they lost. "grin and bear it" is very much a part of the
english psyche.

"hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way" is how Pink Floyd
puts it.



d.a.

Subject: Re: A monarchy?
From: Charles, 
Date: 28 Aug 94 11:12:38 GMT
In article > Charles,
 writes:
>On Sat, 27 Aug 1994 15:52:23 -0600 Norbert Walter said:
>>
>> > ...they can in fact choose the prime minister by royal prerogative.
>>
>>    Yes, to some extent that is true.
>
>--Wait a minute, you two!  While this is technically true, when was the
>last time a British monarch actually could do this?  Certainly not since
>sometime before Victoria!

Not true. the new agreements are in (i think) the statute of westminster
of 1948. in australia at least, the queen, through her representative the
governor-general, still has that right, last exercised in november 1975.
in each of the states of australia, the same is true, via the governors.
that right has been exercised several times this century, one of the more
(in)famous cases being in 1933(?). unless my knowledge of arithmetic or
history is faulty, victoria regina had long left the active theatre of
politics by then.


d.a.

Subject: Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results
From: Charles, 
Date: 27 Aug 94 22:05:41 GMT
In article > Charles,
 writes:
>On Sat, 27 Aug 1994 13:54:11 -0700 > said:
>>Andra1s Kornai writes:
>>
>>> ...giving said priest one rank or another, what has this
>>> got to do with your fundamental rights?
>>
>>I think that would fall under the heading "reasonable accomodation".
>>
>--This is getting complicated, since I decided to take a hand in this.
>I'll label my intrusive comments just to keep things straight.  But Greg,
>I have to side with Mr. Kornai on this.  I am a professing Christian, but
>I don't see the justification for ANY state support of ANY religion.  I
>know that most European countries traditionally had established churches,

they still do. in post-war germany, for example, it is part of the
constittuion of baden-wurttemberg, which came into existence by fiat
afterthe electors of baden had rejected the fusion in all three
referenda/plebiscites on the issue, it is stated  quite explicitly that
the state takes it upon itself to collect church taxes and that schools
are to inculcate christian values and teachings, as approved by the two
recognised denominations, roman catholic and protestant.


d.a.

On Tue, 6 Sep 1994, Noel Perry wrote:

> Hungary (the list) is far and away the best reading of any list on which
> I've lurked.  Take for example the recent upwelling of commentary on
> religion extending not just to the interaction of state and religion in
.....
> educational mores.  It arrrived at my desk several years ago and has
> been treasured ever since -- perhaps most tellingly in September when
> classes start up again.
>
>        The Lesson
>        ----------
>
>      Then Jesus took his disciples up to the mountain and
>...............
> -----
> After all, religion - like laughter, adds significance to our lives.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Tsz     ing tsz ing
>
The lesson is funny but it speaks about something, something else you
have stated.Its speeks about those virtue peoples are unwilling to
keep despite of knowing theese make living better.
                                                    SB