host

Please accept my sincere apology, politicophile, and everyone else who read the deceptive, fake, "news" release from the satirical site, whitehouse.org that I led with in the first quote box of my last post on this thread.

Since I initiated the topic of this thread, I recognize that I have more of a responsibility to post information that I sincerely believe is accurate, than everyone else here, does. I posted what I believed to be an archive press release from the official white house website. I do thoroughly read every quote that I post, and I did not do so, in this instance.

The following is a fact based article that describes a "pay back" to Pat Robertson's CBN, by the republican congressional majority, in the recently passed "transportation bill". The question I have, is...."pay back" to the Robertson organization....for what?
The article is an example of "corporate welfare", if the highway interchange is primarily necessary to increase the value/development potential of CBN's real estate holdings. With the newly emerging "energy crisis", is the best use of deficict enhancing federal spending, construction of a new highway interchange that was <b>"not on the region’s list of priority interstate projects, nor is it in the Virginia Department of Transportation’s six-year spending plan" ?</b>

This federal appropriation indicates that Robertson and CBN still have the ability to influence federal legislators directly, possibly for their mutual financial benefit, since CBN did not appear to work through conventional local and state transportation agencies to get the funding. This is disturbing. It is also extremely alarming, that, with motor fuel headed towards the $3.00 per gallon level, and possibly beyond, that a transportation bill that funds the expansion of automobile dependent, urban sprawl, and tax breaks for the oil industry, funds these counterproductive provisions at the cost of more federal borrowing and further neglect of mass transit infrastructure and an emphasis on new development in urban centers that will become more attractive because of the effects of high fuel prices on public attitudes and pocketbooks.

The 2004 election cemented the political power and influence of politicians from predominantly non-urban states. These are people who come from places where the automobile is the only practical means of transport. They promote policies and funding that are all about insuring plentiful oil without a signifigant plan for efficiency or conservation. It is ironic to observe the political "hit" that they are just beginning to experience from their constituents as the fossil fuel availability that drives their policy goals becomes increasingly inaffordable, even as the rising price and their rising deficit gnaws away at the stability of U.S. currency.

Do not discount the fact that Pat Robertson founded and financed the ACLJ with the goal of countering the perceived "liberal" influence of the ACLU. Pat's "foresight" and investment seem to be bringing a return, lately. Pat hired the ACLJ's director. Pat is neither an irrelevant force, nor one that "mainstream" republican leaders can distance themselves from. He has his own "bully pulpit", too much money and fund raising ability, and the same political base that Rove has so methodically cultivated for Bush. I believe that Bush and Cheney share Pat's sentiment about Chavez. They are taking us back to Pre-Castro, "Batista" style, U.S. imperialism, always a great climate for white European Spanish and American business investors, but terribly tragic for the "brown", impoversihed masses..........
The Robertson, ACLJ "Op", in and of itself, coupled with the Rove/RNC perversion of the thinking of the members of the Christian "Right" convinces me that "mullah" is the approriate title for Robertson and a number of others who manipulate "JAY-sus" as an opiate for the masses who are duped into supporting their power and wealth grab. The Chavez "rant" is icing on the cake because it will prompt some of you here and elsewhere in the U.S. to focus some attention on the Rove/Delay/Frist/Dobson orchestration that makes the Bush/Cheney attack on the sensibilities, security, and constitutionally guaranteed "rights" of informed Americans, even possible......

Lebell

Given what has happened in the last few days, I'm wondering if you are still wondering.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Yakk

Yes. There is a difference between OBL's calls for war against the infidels, and Pat Robertson's war and violence incitement.

Pat Robertson is far better at it, and is speaking to people far more competent at mass civilian slaughter and megadeath.

OBL is a sick, old, weak man hiding in some cave somewhere.

Pat Robertson has the ear of the leader of the most aggressive military on earth, has millions of followers who believe he speaks the word of God, and has massive political power (volunteers, money, and seemingly policy) over large swaths of the dominant national party in the most militarially aggressive nation on earth.

OBL speaks those who feel hopeless and oppressed, and tells them to attack their oppressors. OBL is hunted by nearly every government on the planet. Pat Robertson is invited to the White House.

One side has nuclear bombs, can drop megatonnes of conventional explosive at will anywhere in the world -- and has shown a regular enthusiasm for doing it. The other can manage high-end paper cutters.

Forgive me if I consider Pat more dangerous than OBL.

Don't get me wrong. Both Pat and OBL are evil, dispicable men. They use religion, a tool that can bring harmony to mankind, and use it to incite death, destruction and murder. But don't expect me to respect Pat more simply because he wears suits and looks more like me.

So, what side are you on?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

politicophile

Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden... - I thought that if I said it out loud a few times, I might be able to make sense of it.

Pat Robertson says that it would be a good idea to kill one person and you think that makes him more dangerous than the man who authorized the 9/11 attacks and God knows what else? I'm sorry, but I cannot understand this position. Where do Hitler and Stalin fit in? Maybe in between OBL and Robertson?

Back at you Jack: what side are you on?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

vautrain

I'm on the side of truth, and I think they are on equal moral low ground. They're both espousing terrorism.

Yakk

The Terrorists are incompetent. Terrorism in general is a poor and ineffective way to cause harm to your opponents, unless your opponents sieze up and go into spasms.

The largest Terrorist attack in history managed to kill more people in that month than the number of traffic accidents -- in that same city -- in that same month. I believe by the second month, traffic accidents where once again ahead.

And that attack succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of the attackers. They got increadibly "lucky", they had no idea they would cause nearly that much damage.

Terrorism, as an offensive weapon, is ineffective and gimpy.

The US military machine is highly effective at overthrowing nations, causing megacivilian deaths, and generally causing damage. Do I really need to provide citations of the nations which the US has invaded, attacked, overthrown, or destabalized? Here is a game! You pick a year -- any year from 1960 on -- and I'll tell you a nation that the US was destabalizing, attacking, or invading within 4 years of that date.

Maybe you'll win. But I doubt it. After all, the US election cycle is 8 years long, and what are the odds that a president would give up that big a popularity boost?

What I see is two men. One of which has a broken neck and is wielding a wet noodle, and swearing he wants to slice you open with it. The other has a rocket launcher aimed at you, and tells you to start dancing. Who is the more dangerous?

Because that is the relative power involved here.

Yes, OBL managed to encourage people to kill a few thousand people. This sucks. But at the scale of global conflict and US military power, it is a pittance.

Pat Robertson says it is a good idea for the US government to kill the democratically elected leader of a country that has engaged in nothing that even approximates acts of war against the USA.

Unilateral, covert, acts of war by the USA have caused untold damage over the world. The USA has been willing to engage in doings these thinly vieled acts, and the people of the USA have stood by and cheered. Continued support for such acts is dangerous, deadly, immorral and evil.

And I will not stand idly by, and pretend it doesn't matter. I mean, he just wants the US government to overthrow a popular, democratically elected, Latin American president. Nothing the US hasn't done before, anon and anon -- that makes it right and just? Right?

No. It does not. I will not pardon these acts. There is a line, and I will not cross it, nor will I excuse those who do.

Truth. I will not ally with liars. I will not pretend murderers are not murderers. I will not excuse someone of their crimes just because they wear a suit, look like me, and speak honeyed words.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

politicophile

Terrorism is ineffective? Tell that, first, to the families of the 9/11 victims. Then tell that to Zapatero and the other cowards in Spain. Terrorists kill people: they kill innocent people, which is the very thing you demonize the United States for doing. Let's try and avoid a double standard here.


Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam - 'nuff said.

A particularly smelly red herring, but nothing more. Pat Robertson, as a single American and not a political leader, cannot and should not be blamed for what you consider to be immoral actions of the United States. I don't blame OBL for forcing Saudi Arabian women to walk around in 100 degree heat wearing black shadoors.

Megadeaths are millions of deaths. The U.S. has participated in some conflicts where there were civilian megadeaths: WWI (I'm guessing), WWI, possibly Vietnam and Korea - that's all. Especially post-1960 (otherwise, you will invariably start talking about Native Americans or slavery), the United States has not been causing civilian megadeaths.

I agree with you that this is the situation we are facing: now we need to stop worrying about Robertson's wet noodle (which is very small in the first place ) and focus on OBL's rocket launcher.


Ooooookay. But Pat Robertson casually suggesting we off the President of Venezuela some how does measure on that scale? We're not comparing OBL with The Great Satan here - we're comparing him to the annoying, incorrect blowhard known as Pat Robertson.


Part slippery slope, part red herring. The progression is facinating, but I still feel that your analogy here is entirely incorrect.



I'm not suggesting you ally yourself with anybody, least of all Pat Robertson. I'm just suggesting you face the breath-takingly obvious reality that Osama bin Laden is more dangerous, more sinister, more evil, etc - than Pat Robertson. I can't put it any more clearly than that.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Charlatan

That wasn't terrorism that was either war or insurgency. I may be splitting hairs here but I don't think so.




Ultimately I agree with an earlier post... Robertson and someone like OBL are on the same moral ground. In this regard they are equal. I don't think there is any shading when it comes to calling for someone's death (whether it is an individual or the entire Western world).

Yes, Robertson has the ear of the leader of the US but the likelihood of the US Administration carrying out his wishes is rather remote.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

filtherton

As far as i've heard, the vast majority of christians have said not a thing. I mean, it's one thing for a few christian leaders to decry such statements here or there, but you must understand that i've read parts of the bible and it is indeed seemingly a violent and bloodthirsty ideology. How many instances are there of the christian god destroying entire communities, civilizations even, as part of some sort of immature sense of vengeance? Have you heard the story of job? If this is the behavior of the christian god, the being in whose image christians believe themselves to be made, what reason do i have to believe that most christians are above the use of a little assassination if it furthers their agenda?

host

Yakk...you've done a great job of explaining the point that the difference between the "mullahs" of the Muslim faith and the Christian "mullahs" here in the U.S., is that the ones here have the actual influence, power, and wealth to actually trun their hatred and ignorance into real attacks that result in death and injury to real people and further erode (if that is even possible to do to the current administration...) the reputation of our country in the eyes of our former allies.

Those who dismiss Robertson as irrelevant should reconsider........

We've discussed the federal republican politicians' relatiobship with the religious right, before.....here:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83400">Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.?</a>

If you think that 700 Club/CBN, are Robertson's only outlet for broadcasting misinformation and propaganda, think again;
the guy has the tentacles of an octopus, as far as the influence that he is capable of projecting. Robertson's puppet at ACLJ, Jay Sekulow, has his own daily call in, syndicated radio talk show.....
http://www.aclj.org/OnTheRadio/Archive.aspx

Jay Sekulow's "resume" from the ACLJ website

Yakk

I am talking about scale. Death is death. Death sucks. Do you understand that 1 million deaths sucks more than 1 thousand deaths?

Terrorism is evil. Terrorism is, compared to nations making War, incompetent at doing evil. Because War causes evil with far less effort and with far greater efficiency than Terrorism ever has.

If you cannot tell the different between millions of innocent people killed, and thousands of innocent people killed, I cannot help you understand it.

Yes, Terrorists kills people. I claim that, compared to the modern military, they are ineffective at it. Terrorism kills people retail, while modern war kills people wholesale.

I have never not demonized OBL. He's an evil fuck. But he's a gimpy, ineffective evil fuck if you compare him on a world-wide scale.

Given the USAs history, the USA is quite likely to off the President of Venezuela. The USA has a pattern and habit of killing Latin American elected leaders and overthrowing their governments. The USA has tolerated one nation in it's hemisphere that is constistently openly defiant of it (Cuba), and it took the threat of nuclear holocaust for that to happen.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

So, no, I do not consider Pat's comments to be idle threats. They fit the pattern of US foreign-policy behaviour in the region quite accurately.

Both instances of defensive guerilla warfare -- of people pushing occupiers off of the land they grew up on. I stated that Terrorism is an ineffective offensive weapon.

Pat Robertson has influence over millions of Americans, a non-trivial percentage of political activists in the USA, a good chunk of the US House of Representatives and Senate, and is complemented and invited to visit by the president of the USA.

So, no, Pat Roberston is not just "some blowhard". Ayn Coultier is "some blowhard". Ayn Rand is "some blowhard". Pat Robertson is someone with influence.

Possibly Pat is in the midst of seeing his influence be destroyed. All the better. But claiming that Pat has no influence is disingenious.

I don't blame OBL for every act of terrorism in the world. But the weapon OBL is using -- terrorism -- is ineffective as an offensive weapon. The weapon Pat is waving around is not.

So, other than a number of examples, the US has not been causing civilian megadeaths. I'm sorry, but I won't brush Vietnam under the carpet.

Anyhow, the US is working on a new megadeath. What was the official US government Iraqi civilian bodycount for current 15 year old War in the Gulf? If not, have any decent estimates?

How does that compare to the American bodycount caused by OBL -- heck, caused by all terrorists -- in the same period of time?

I am getting this mental image of a pile of pebbles next to a mountain.

Scale matters.

OBL and Pat Robertson are the same -- people who use religion to generate hate. The difference is, Pat Robertson has influence over people who are far more deadly than OBL does.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

jorgelito

Didn't Robertson also call for the death of Supreme Court Justices? In fact, didn't he pray for it? I thought I read that he prayed for O'Connor's "resignation" (one way or the other) and that G*d answered his prayers after 2 years.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

vautrain

He didn't call for the death of SC justices, but he definitely called for people to pray for them to retire, as you say, one way or the other. He said he thought it was time for them to move on. The non-conservative ones, that is. When reminded that they are given lifetime appointments, he reiterated that it was just time for them to move on. He obviously doesn't respect our constitution.

jorgelito

Thanks for the clarification.

The whole thing just seems so....childish.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

politicophile

Yes, I understand that. But do you understand that threatening one person with death sucks less than plotting to and succeeding in killing thousands of civilians?

Terrorism is a specific act that happens in war. It is an atrocity, often during a war, where civilians are attacked and killed in order to damage the enemy's resolve and morale. So saying that terrorism is less effective at "causing evil" than war doesn't make a lot of sense. Certainly, your typical large battle is more costly in terms of lives than your average terrorist attack, but, since terrorism is an act of war, divorcing it from other kinds of warfare is unwarranted.


...while Pat Robertson hasn't killed anyone at all. Can't say that about Osama, can we?

Not as ineffective as Pat Robertson.



You sure like to hold grudges against entire nations years after the perpetrators are gone from power. Does it seem "quite likely" to you that Germany will invade France again? Given their history...

Yeah, but Robertson doesn't speak for the government! If a prominent neo-Nazi in Germany suggested that we should kill the President of France, say, would you be worried that another blitzkreig is around the corner?



How about the IRA bombing campaign in England, then, if you don't like those examples?



Vastly overstated. The sensationalism does not help your cause. Can you find a Congressman, Senator, or President that has made a statement supporting Robertson's suggestion?

Research *chuckle*... MEGADEATHS! - in the Soviet Union and youo might have a better understanding of why we did what we did in Vietnam.

Well, if you take into account the number of Iraqi civilians that are killed by the insurgency every day, I'd say we're running pretty close to even, with the terrorists gaining every day.

Oh yeah? Like who? Who are these deadly people Pat Robertson can motivate to action?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Charlatan

Sorry to threadjack for the moment but I found this statement interesting (I added some bold for emphasis).

By this reasoning, the US committed acts of terrorism when they dropped the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The allies committed acts of Terrorism when they bombed civilian tragets in Germany (just as the Germans did in London).

Are you sure you want to stand by this definition of Terrorism?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

highthief

Any attack on civilians is a de facto terrorist attack - the point of the attack being to create an environment of fear and demoralization to one side or the other.

Having said that, in wholesale war, like WW2, where - unlike today - it truly was "us" or "them" to the virtual finish, there may be greater justification.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Yakk

http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0239.htm
Pat doesn't just talk. He acts.

Political policy in the middle east, inspired by scripture!

What kind of people does Pat have influence over? He's a massive fund-raiser and volunteer-raiser for the Republican party. Obviously he has no influence with the government...

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...pat-robertson/
As an aside, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The acts of a man with no influence.

He lost the 1988 nomination because he lied and claimed he was a combat marine, when he never saw a day of combat during his tour in Korea. If not for that, he was viewed as a decent chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

No influence. Just a blowhard.

I disagree. Pat Robertson is dangerous. He encourages people, from sentators to members of your house of representatives, to voters, to volunteers, to support the use of the US military as an aggressive military force.

This makes him dangerous.

There are some nations which have expressed regret over their past actions, and have changed their patterns of foreign policy. Germany, for example, is a nation that has changed more than night and day since the first half of the 20th century. The same with Japan, to a slightly lesser degree.

Other nations have expressed little to no regret, and even hold up their past to be emulated.

Did that neo-Nazi almost become chancellor of Germany 15 years ago, have an audience of millions in a daily or weekly broadcast, get invited to the house of the head of state and government regularly, is a major fundraiser for the government's election efforts, and is generally a mover and shaker?

Why yes, that would worry me.

The thing is, neo-Nazis are villified in much of Germany. Much like the KKK is villified in much of the USA.

Pat Robertson isn't. People who think like him are not. Their money is welcomed. Their support is welcomed. Their opinions are valued.

This makes them extremely dangerous.

You may remember something that happened in the American Democratic party a while ago. The democrats looked at their rolls, and saw something they would not tolerate. A racist wing of the party remained, a legacy of the civil war in the south.

Thus was born the Dixiecrats, who formed a splinter party and won a number of states in a presidential election. The democratic party kicked out a large source of power and votes in the south, because they would not stand for it anymore.

There is something a moral person must do. Even if someone will call you ally, and offer to help you, a moral person must determine what it means to call a person friend.

Possibly the Republicans can show this fibre. But so long as they call Pat Robertson friend and accept his aid, I cannot believe he has no influence over the Republican party.

Draw a line. Show your fibre.

The IRA bombing campaign in England was a resounding success!

Oh wait, it really wasn't. Northern Ireland is pretty much one of the most tightly held remnants of the UK's global empire, and is only now starting to be set free.

How many people did the IRA kill in England?

Ask the people of England if they will bow to terror.

You did it because you screwed up. You assumed that any two communists where allies, and that Vietnam would be an ally or puppet of this vast communist world-wide menace.

Vietnam was fighting a war against imperialist occupation. The USA came into this war on the French side of this colonial rebellion, and set up puppet governments to justify their intervention. Enough Vietnamese would rather die than live under occupation that the USA failed.

Most of the world figured this out, and stayed out of Vietnam.

The US blundered in, and megadeath resulted.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

politicophile

I agree that the nuclear bombings of Japan were terrorist attacks, albeit justified ones. The purpose of those attacks was to cause so much devastation that the enemy became completely demoralized and surrendered. Not all terrorist attacks are cowardly and unjustified, at least by definition. I think the decisions have to be viewed in context of the alternatives, however, where hundreds of thousands of poeple were going to die no matter what at the close of WWII.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Charlatan

Hmmm... given this assesment of terrorism it really starts to make me wonder.

Terrorism that benefits us = good

Terrorism that doesn't benefit us = bad


I'm sorry but I just don't see how the ends justify the means. Terrorism is wrong and that all there is really is to it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Lebell

Instead of Job, I suggest reading the Gospels if you want to understand how the Christians I know view God and how to act.

As to the outrage, I am suspecting that no amount would satisfy you as you seem to have separate issues with Christians and Christianity.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

filtherton

Well, we aren't talking about the christians you know. We're talking about the ones who embrace a god who compels them to smite his enemies. A god who compelled syria to invade israel because the israelis angered him, and then punished syria for obliging. I have no doubt assassination falls in line with the biblically endorsed practice of enemy smiting. Chavez would be lucky if the christians didn't bury him up to his head in sand and then take turns throwing hand-sized rocks at his skull.

If the bible is the word of god, as many christians believe, how are we to reconcile their potential behavior with the behavior of their diety, a diety who oversaw the bloodening of rivers and the cold blooded murder of first born children, or the murder by drowning of nearly an entire region?

Just because you know many peaceful christians doesn't mean that christianity is not a violent religion and can't be used quite easily to justify any number of atrocities.

Charlatan

Except that the Christians in Venezuela seem to really like Chavez...

You are confusing hypocrites with Christians... not that they are mutually exclusive.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

jorgelito

I bolded for emphasis: Japan has not really changed much, at least like Germany has. They still see themselves as victims of WWII instead of as aggressors and still see themselves as an example to Asians, as liberators. In fact, Japan is becoming more militant these days and their leadership worships war criminals (class A war criminals)[End threadjack]

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

MSD

The root of the problem seems to be the fact that we're listening to him in the first place.

Elphaba

His audience is far greater than this little forum. Or did you mean the global "we're listening" which has now become the case?

The "root of the problem" is a tad bit larger than you have expressed IMO.

Lebell

I'd be pleased to discuss this in depth in "Philosophy", but in short a Christian's understanding of who God is stems (or should stem) from Christ's teachings.

I don't think Jesus would approve in this case.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

filtherton

I know, i'm just fucking around. I was seeing how difficult it would be to use the common, usually conservative, argument against islam as a template to create an argument against christianity. Seems like a pretty efficient way to pretend to engage in a discussion without actually attempting to get anything out of it.

host

On August 29, FEMA issued a disaster relief announcement that listed and linked Pat's "Operation Blessing" as fourth on it's list of organizations to donate money to NOLA relief efforts...........
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18473
Faith based, compassionate conservatism at work.....provocative statements advocating the assassination of a foreign, democratically elected head of state are "no problemo", nor are controversies of past "Operation Blessing" performance, I guess......

Marvelous Marv

You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but your own words demonstrate that my statement is appropriate.

Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

This appears to contradict your statement regarding both ethnicity and that a Muslim is not necessarily tied to the religion Islam, the last sentence (using the literal translation of "Muslim") notwithstanding.

Furthermore, there are a "host" of examples on the TFP in which someone lumps all Christians in with people such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or George W. Bush. Occasionally they will refer to the lunatic fringe as the "radical right," or "extremist Christians" in an attempt to disguise the inherent bigotry. However, within their thinking is the fundamental assumption that ALL Christians are "radical" and "extremist."

Such a position remains "ignorant," to use your word.

This appears to be a distinction without a difference. For example, it would be just as accurate to say that "religious membership is chosen, presumably, by its adherents because they share the views of other members of the religion."

There is also no shortage of religions/denominations that attempt to sway their members into electing representatives who are likely to effect the church's position. The fear of losing tax-exempt status has been the only limitation on the activities of the larger ones.


Like "Muslims" from the Middle East?


I simply used the verbiage that would be the most familiar to the most people. I have not observed any of the national media using the word "Islamics" in the manner you prefer.


Like Arabic suicide bombers?


My entire premise (admittedly couched in sarcasm) was based on the philosophy that Republicans do not all think alike and look alike.

It would appear that we are at least partially in agreement: Generalizations do not always apply to individuals within the specified group.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

smooth

Well, it would contradict my statement if one could ignore the last sentence. It's wikpedia and usually I would recommend one refrain from posting publicly editable internet information as fact. In this case, however, you including a definition that supports my contention and then calling me wrong is just laughable...the first sentence in your quote is an excellent example of a logical error called an undistributed middle term. All followers of Islam are muslims (this is how the first sentence should be worded--and actually could be changed given it's wikpedia *hint*), not all muslims are followers of Islam (this is incorrect as the following sentences point out that some muslims are NOT followers of Islam).

How exactly do you just ignore the last sentence? Muslims aren't necessarily followers of Islam. Moses and Jesus were Jewish, dude, no way around it. Mother Teresa wasn't Islam, but she certainly fits that definition of a muslim. I mean, I could argue that apples are red, sure I've seen some green ones, but if you ignore that last part, all apples are red...but that'd be an equally illogical argument as all muslims are followers of Islam, ignoring Moses and Jesus, among others...

Perhaps you would be interested in reading what some muslims (the Progressive Muslim Union North America) have to say about this issue:
http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/2004...ethnicity.html


If someone lumps all christians into a radical and extremist group of ideologues, then I would agree their position is an ignorant one. All the threads I've seen, however, don't do that and many go to great lengths to clarify that they are speaking about a particular group of people. Lotsa christians take umbrage at what they read into the post rather than what is there. Also, a lot of people are religious and progressive in their politics and a lot of people post here who are christian but aren't offended by statements made by host himself. The utmost irony would be if host were a christian himself. I would laugh my ass of because I haven't ever seen you avail yourself of the option to not insult him, and I've never seen the reverse in action.

This is interesting and follows the trend you set in the opening. You want to disagree with me, so you say I'm wrong and then paraphrase my point. That's cool, I mean I'm all for you understanding what I wrote better so please paraphrase away.




Me neither, but I didn't want to type out "followers of Islam" and I couldn't really figure out how to parse the term any other way. I actually thought you would follow what I was writing.


If by philosophy, you meant personal belief, then who am I to falsify it? But if you really feel that Republicans think and "look" (I don't know what kind of meaning I should infer from this; do you mean racially? phenotypically? But I find it interested that you would read "act" as "look") differently than you, your interests would be better served finding or creating a different political party. Poltiics are about securing the interests of your self-selected group.

Of course, I didn't see the original discussion revolve around whether Republicans looked and thought the same; rather that Republican, conservative christians thought along the same lines and acted in similar ways. This is an intersection of at least three classes of belief: conservatives within christianity (a self-selected group of individuals working toward an end in the larger umbrella of their religion) espousing adherence to a political party that promises to secure their ideological interests.

I can't think of a single person on this board who thinks that all generalizations apply to all individuals within a specified group. weeell, you might get some flamboyant post that floats a variant of the idea that all leftists are enemies of America. but hopefully that won't happen this time because I'd rather not be proved wrong on this point.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

stevo

How about looking somewhere other than wikpedia...like dictionary.com
Um. so should I call The American Heritage Dictionary and Princton University and tell them they are wrong? or will you?

Maybe I misread the post on the blog you linked to...but the way I read the last paragraph, I understood it to say that it is pointless to have Islam as only a cultural identity not tied to religion. correct me if I'm wrong.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

smooth

OMG, if you guys spent half as much time researching things rather than just doing google searches in attempts to prove me wrong you'd quit wasting all of our time...

Before you make any calls, research the difference between Nation of Islam, Black muslims, and followers of Islam (all part of the definition you cited). THEN get back to me on whether you think muslism are only adherents to the theology of Islam. This has now become a case of RTFM or STFU.

No, you read it correctly. One group of muslims are concerned that other muslims aren't adherents to the Islam theology. That's because non-Islam muslims exist...

...even more thought provoking is the notion that atheist muslims exist...which interestingly mirrors the existence of atheist Jews. Or even atheist Rabbis...giving rise to the claim that century old religions also work as ethnic identities for people.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mojo_PeiPei

Are you confusing non-Islam muslim with Arab? Because in that case Jesus and Moses would be Arabs, they were not Muslim.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Ustwo

Since the Arab invasion of Isreal didn't happn until well after Jesus was dead, I rather doubt he would be Arab (this is in the philosphy board btw).

Also the concept that saying 'muslim' is different from saying 'Islamist' is kinda silly.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_intr.htm

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mojo_PeiPei

Nevermind...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Marvelous Marv

(Sigh) Some people won't even let you agree with them...

I choose not to accept your polite invitation, but I will provide some reading material for YOU:

Merriam-Webster

Link

Cambridge Dictionary

Link

American heritage dictionary:

Link

Microsoft Encarta

Link

AskOxford.com (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

Link


Also from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary


I was going to ask if, in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still stood by this statement:


You've been kind enough to answer that already. If Sammy Davis Jr. were still alive, he'd probably be surprised to know that his ethnicity was Jewish, not African.

But I guess that's Sociology for you. It reminds me of this old joke:

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher