Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72715 is a reply to message #72708] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 11:26   |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm sensing some sarcasm there Rick. ;>) I would make a terrible diplomat. I
react far too much from the gut. Beside, it's hard to be a good communicator
with your foot in your mouth!
I didn't mean to sound harsh to ulfiyya. He (she?) has every right to want
this group to stick to PARIS related stuff. I guess it just feels more like
a community to me than a technical reference source.
Tony
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
>i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
> wasn't going to enter this fray...
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>
>>With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
>>can
>>discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
>>more
>>of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
>>house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't want
>>to read.
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>
>>"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>>>
>>> for ... many times poeple.
>>> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
>>> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>>>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>>>>
>>>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>>>>
>>>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>>>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>>>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>>>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would
>>> be
>>>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
>>>>> point.
>>>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
>>> it's
>>>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>>>>> Probably
>>>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's
>>> sort
>>>>> of about this very topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just
>>> as
>>>>>
>>>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
>>>>>> Some
>>>
>>>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>>>>>> something
>>>>>
>>>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>>>
>>>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>>>>> -noun
>>>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>>>>>>> ability.
>>>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>>>>>>> firm
>>>>> faith
>>>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
>>>>>>> etc.:
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>>>>>>> engagement,
>>>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
>>>>>>> oath,
>>>>> allegiance,
>>>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
>>> through
>>>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
>>>>>>> can
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>>>>>>> faith
>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
>>>>>>>>> Animals
>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married,
>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
>>>>>>>>>> Religious
>>>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
>>>>>>>>>> "faith."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll
>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put together
>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
>>>>>>>>>> trains,
>>>>> fly
>>>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>>>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
>>>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
>>>>>>>>>> afterlife.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
>>>>>>>>>> deities.
>>>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
>>>>>>>>>> violently,
>>>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
>>>>>>>>>> disagree
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>>>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can be
>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well,
>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
>>>>>>>>>> ARE
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice
>>> that
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms
>>> such
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>>>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery, no
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to
>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear a
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
>>>>>>>>>> freedom
>>>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any
>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system
>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
>>>>>>>>>> hijacked
>>>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> tons
>>>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of
>>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>> tells
>>>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong
>>> sense
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference
>>> point,
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use
>>> to
>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so
>>> with
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws
>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept
>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that
>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> proven
>>>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
>>>>>>>>>>> abuse,
>>>>>>> anger
>>>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose
>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee
>>> that
>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> whole.
>>>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing,
>>> lying,
>>>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those
>>> can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>> of survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
>>>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
>>>>>>>>>>> societies
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
>>>>>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they
>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to
>>> make
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would
>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the
>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would
>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences
>>> of
>>>>>>> either,
>>>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
>>>>>>>>>>> consequence
>>>>>>>>> - it
>>>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions.
>>> With
>>>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate
>>> drastically
>>>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in
>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
>>>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that
>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be
>>> no
>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>> loving
>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God
>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
>>>>>>>>>>> insulting,
>>>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
>>>>>>>>>>> concept;
>>>>>>>>> and 2)
>>>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
>>>>>>>>>>> trump
>>>>> greed
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
>>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>>>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a
>>> strong
>>>>>>>>> morals
>>>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> violence
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We
>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>> car
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> Pope
>>>>>>>>> quote
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else
>>> in
>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have
>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At
>>> best,
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God,
>>> and
>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name
>>> of
>>>>> Allah
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there
>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> sad,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>> whims
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day.
>>> That
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
>>>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>> others?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy
>>> Islam
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to
>>> not
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from
>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is
>>> to
>>>>>>> outlaw
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the
>>> world
>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>> wins
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10
>>> hours
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread
>>> -...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
>>>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing
>>> as
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>> depicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>>>>>>>>>>> 59
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> `
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72717 is a reply to message #72705] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 11:31 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
on a number of counts.
And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some of
the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
overall, domestically and internationally.
Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
those in charge now.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>
> How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
> created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and blame
> for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote against
> it.
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>
>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments was
>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>
>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
>> for domestic political ends.
>>
>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and Bush
>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>
>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>
>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f3862@linux...
>>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
> of
>>>> the threat.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>>>
>>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
>>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has always
> been
>>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
>>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that Bush,
>>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion of
>>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before they
>>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
> stomach
>>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our intelligence
>>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
> decisions
>>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first place.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of
>>> some
>>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
> the
>>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450f0b12@linux...
>>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
>>> it's
>>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others
>>> do
>>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
>>> well,
>>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money
>>> and
>>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
>>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
>>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
> have
>>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How
>>> do
>>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
>>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to
> get
>>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
>>> holy
>>>>>> about war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
> Quaeda
>>>>> just
>>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
>>>>> west
>>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
>>>>> Islam. So
>>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
> line
>>> is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things
> have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>>> Christians.
>>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
>>> extremist
>>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps
> seem
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
>>>>> hungry
>>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious
>>> wars
>>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists"
>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think
> a
>>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
> does
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have
> been
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
> hung
>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
> universe
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes
> the
>>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
>>> clever
>>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
>>> ago,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
>>> who,
>>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
>>> evidence
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing,
> and
>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
>>>>> bucks
>>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who
> push
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing,
>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
>>>>>>> spreading
>>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
>>> power.
>>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and
> the
>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
>>> victory.
>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
>>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
> Benedict
>>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
> humanists
>>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>>>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam
> and
>>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
> The
>>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>>>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’
> to
>>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
> philosophy—hence
>>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
> than
>>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope
> to
>>>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>>>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>>>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
>>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> Islamists
>>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> editorializes:
>>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
> united
>>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
> of
>>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
> insult.
>>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
> or
>>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
> great
>>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72720 is a reply to message #72708] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 12:36 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rick,
Do you think it would help if we could just figure out a way to get into the
UN gallery (do they have a gallery?) and then start mooning people? I want
to do something constructive instead of sitting around bitching all the
time.
Deej
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
> i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
> wasn't going to enter this fray...
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>
> >With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
can
> >discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
more
> >of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
> >house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't
want
> >to read.
> >
> >Tony
> >
> >
> >"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
> >>
> >> for ... many times poeple.
> >> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
> >> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
> >>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
> >>>
> >>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
> >>>
> >>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
> >>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
> >>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
> >>>lasting and beneficial peace.
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>> -Jamie
> >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>TCB wrote:
> >>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that
would
> >> be
> >>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
point.
> >>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
> >> it's
> >>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
> >>>> Probably
> >>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and
it's
> >> sort
> >>>> of about this very topic.
> >>>>
> >>>>
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-
1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-2981628?ie=UTF8&am p;s=books
> >>>>
> >>>> TCB
> >>>>
> >>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although
just
> >> as
> >>>>
> >>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
Some
> >>
> >>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
> >>>>> something
> >>>>
> >>>>> for some other reason, of course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of
the
> >>
> >>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
> >>>>> problem with that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TCB wrote:
> >>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
> >>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
> >>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> >>>>>> -noun
> >>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
> >>>>>> ability.
> >>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
hypothesis
> >>>> would
> >>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
> >>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
> >>>>>> firm
> >>>> faith
> >>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
> >>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
etc.:
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
> >>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
> >>>>>> faith.
> >>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
> >>>>>> engagement,
> >>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
> >>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
oath,
> >>>> allegiance,
> >>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
> >>>>>> troubles.
> >>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
> >> through
> >>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
can
> >>>> do
> >>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail,
but
> >>>> do
> >>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
> >>>>>> faith
> >>>> but
> >>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> TCB
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
> >>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> TCB wrote:
> >>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
Animals
> >>>> take
> >>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
have
> >>>> faith.
> >>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get
married,
> >> etc.
> >>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
> >>>>>>>>> Religious
> >>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
"faith."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
find
> >>>> its
> >>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll
> >> see
> >>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put
together
> >> much
> >>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
people
> >>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire
> >>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
trains,
> >>>> fly
> >>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
> >>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
have
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
more
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
> >>>>>>>>> stories
> >>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
afterlife.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
> >>>>>>>>> deities.
> >>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
> >>>>>>>>> violently,
> >>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
disagree
> >>>> about
> >>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
> >>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can
be
> >> a
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well,
> >> you
> >>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
ARE
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
saying
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who
are
> >>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice
> >> that
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
> >>>>>>>>> right
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms
> >> such
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
> >>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
> >>>>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery,
no
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
common
> >>>> sense
> >>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to
> >>>>>>>>> sort
> >>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear
a
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
> >>>>>>>>> additional
> >>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
> >>>>>>>>> freedom
> >>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any
> >> one
> >>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system
> >>>>>>>>> based
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
> >>>>>>>>> examples
> >>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
> >>>>>>>>> hijacked
> >>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
> >>>>>>>>> cases.
> >>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
and
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought
to
> >>>> go
> >>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
there
> >>>> are
> >>>>>>>> tons
> >>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of
> >>>>>>>>>> itself
> >>>>>>>> tells
> >>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a
strong
> >> sense
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher
reference
> >> point,
> >>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one
use
> >> to
> >>>>>> decide
> >>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now,
so
> >> with
> >>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws
> >>>>>>>>>> since
> >>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to
accept
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that
has
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> proven
> >>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
> >>>>>>>>>> reasoning
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
> >>>>>>>>>> abuse,
> >>>>>> anger
> >>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide
whose
> >> experience
> >>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee
> >> that
> >>>>>> person
> >>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
the
> >>>> whole.
> >>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then
stealing,
> >> lying,
> >>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those
> >> can
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> means
> >>>>>>>>>> of survival.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
> >>>>>>>>>> differences
> >>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
> >>>>>>>>>> societies
> >>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into
any
> >>>> form
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
> >>>>>>>>>> relationships,
> >>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they
> >>>>>>>>>> aren't
> >>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes
to
> >> make
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would
> >>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the
> >>>>>>>>>> time,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
person
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> person,
> >>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would
> >>>>>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
> >>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
> >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
were
> >>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no
consequences
> >> of
> >>>>>> either,
> >>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
> >>>>>>>>>> consequence
> >>>>>>>> - it
> >>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
both
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> whether
> >>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions.
> >> With
> >>>>>>>> moral
> >>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate
> >> drastically
> >>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency
in
> >> reasoning
> >>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
Even
> >>>> when
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that
> >>>>>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be
> >> no
> >>>> power
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
and
> >>>> loving
> >>>>>>>> God
> >>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God
> >> in
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
> >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
> >>>>>>>>>> insulting,
> >>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
> >>>>>>>>>> concept;
> >>>>>>>> and 2)
> >>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
trump
> >>>> greed
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
planet.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> Dedric
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
> >>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a
> >> strong
> >>>>>>>> morals
> >>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> response
> >>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
and
> >>>> even
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> violence
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single
> >>>>>>>>>>>> largest
> >>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world.
We
> >> ignore
> >>>>>>>> car
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
the
> >>>> Pope
> >>>>>>>> quote
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
> >>>>>> religion
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
> >>>>>>>> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else
> >> in
> >>>> many
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> talked
> >>>>>> to,
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> world
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have
> >> here.
> >>>>>>>>>>> People
> >>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do.
At
> >> best,
> >>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under
> >>>>>>>>>>>> threat
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
> >>>>>>>>>>>> country
> >>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on
our
> >>>> own
> >>>>>>>>>>> country
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
this
> >>>> kind
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
correct
> >>>> thing
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God,
> >> and
> >>>>>> hence
> >>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
choice
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name
> >> of
> >>>> Allah
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
> >>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> 24
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there
> >> is
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> sad,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fear
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
personal
> >>>> whims
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day.
> >> That
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in
God
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> sense
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
wrong,
> >>>> then
> >>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
the
> >>>> President
> >>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
> >>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference
> >>>>>>>>>>>> point
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
belief
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
for
> >>>> others?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a
guy
> >> Islam
> >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do
on
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>>> forum
> >>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> intent
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
goal
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to
> >> not
> >>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity
from
> >> public
> >>>>>>>>>>> view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
public
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes,
is
> >> to
> >>>>>> outlaw
> >>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see
the
> >> world
> >>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
> >>>>>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>> wins
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> validity
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
maintain
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> balance
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust
in
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
fallible
> >>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of
10
> >> hours
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene
Lennon"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread
> >> -...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
> >>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good
thing
> >> as
> >>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>> sees
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
that
> >>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>> depicts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit
of
> >>>> trouble
> >>>>>>>>>>> (as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
> >>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>>>> down
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
> >>>>>>>>>>> 59
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> `
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72724 is a reply to message #72720] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 13:06 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Forget mooning them. Wring a few of their necks while you're there.
Jimmy
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:45104797@linux...
> Rick,
>
> Do you think it would help if we could just figure out a way to get into
the
> UN gallery (do they have a gallery?) and then start mooning people? I want
> to do something constructive instead of sitting around bitching all the
> time.
>
> Deej
>
>
> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
> > i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
> > wasn't going to enter this fray...
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
> > <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
> >
> > >With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
> can
> > >discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
> more
> > >of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
> > >house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't
> want
> > >to read.
> > >
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
> > >>
> > >> for ... many times poeple.
> > >> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
> > >> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting
read
> > >>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
> > >>>
> > >>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
> > >>>
> > >>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
> > >>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
> > >>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
> > >>>lasting and beneficial peace.
> > >>>
> > >>>Cheers,
> > >>> -Jamie
> > >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>TCB wrote:
> > >>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that
> would
> > >> be
> > >>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
> point.
> > >>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no
XXXXXXXX'
> > >> it's
> > >>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
> > >>>> Probably
> > >>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and
> it's
> > >> sort
> > >>>> of about this very topic.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-
> 1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-2981628?ie=UTF8&am p;s=books
> > >>>>
> > >>>> TCB
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although
> just
> > >> as
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
> Some
> > >>
> > >>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
> that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
> > >>>>> something
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> for some other reason, of course.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of
> the
> > >>
> > >>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
> > >>>>> problem with that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> -Jamie
> > >>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> TCB wrote:
> > >>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
> > >>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
> > >>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> > >>>>>> -noun
> > >>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
> > >>>>>> ability.
> > >>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
> hypothesis
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
> > >>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the
> > >>>>>> firm
> > >>>> faith
> > >>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
> > >>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
> etc.:
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
> > >>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
> > >>>>>> faith.
> > >>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
> > >>>>>> engagement,
> > >>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
> > >>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
> oath,
> > >>>> allegiance,
> > >>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
> > >>>>>> troubles.
> > >>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as
made
> > >> through
> > >>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
> can
> > >>>> do
> > >>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might
fail,
> but
> > >>>> do
> > >>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
> > >>>>>> faith
> > >>>> but
> > >>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> TCB
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
> > >>>>>>> definition.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> TCB wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
> Animals
> > >>>> take
> > >>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
> have
> > >>>> faith.
> > >>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get
> married,
> > >> etc.
> > >>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
> > >>>>>>>>> Religious
> > >>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
> "faith."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
> find
> > >>>> its
> > >>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has
to
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that
I'll
> > >> see
> > >>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put
> together
> > >> much
> > >>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
> people
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses,
hire
> > >>>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
> trains,
> > >>>> fly
> > >>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would
investigate
> > >>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
> have
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
> more
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
> > >>>>>>>>> stories
> > >>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
> afterlife.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
> > >>>>>>>>> deities.
> > >>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
> > >>>>>>>>> violently,
> > >>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
> disagree
> > >>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly
on
> > >>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can
> be
> > >> a
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion.
Well,
> > >> you
> > >>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
> ARE
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
> saying
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions
who
> are
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of
justice
> > >> that
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
> > >>>>>>>>> right
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other
freedoms
> > >> such
> > >>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
> > >>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
> > >>>>>>>>> human
> > >>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery,
> no
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
> common
> > >>>> sense
> > >>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion
to
> > >>>>>>>>> sort
> > >>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to
wear
> a
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
> > >>>>>>>>> additional
> > >>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral
foundation.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
> > >>>>>>>>> freedom
> > >>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on
any
> > >> one
> > >>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a
system
> > >>>>>>>>> based
> > >>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
> > >>>>>>>>> examples
> > >>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
> > >>>>>>>>> hijacked
> > >>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
> > >>>>>>>>> cases.
> > >>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
> and
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture
ought
> to
> > >>>> go
> > >>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
> there
> > >>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> tons
> > >>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and
of
> > >>>>>>>>>> itself
> > >>>>>>>> tells
> > >>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a
> strong
> > >> sense
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher
> reference
> > >> point,
> > >>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one
> use
> > >> to
> > >>>>>> decide
> > >>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now,
> so
> > >> with
> > >>>>>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with
laws
> > >>>>>>>>>> since
> > >>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to
> accept
> > >> as
> > >>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis
that
> has
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>> proven
> > >>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
> > >>>>>>>>>> reasoning
> > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
> > >>>>>>>>>> abuse,
> > >>>>>> anger
> > >>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide
> whose
> > >> experience
> > >>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no
guarantee
> > >> that
> > >>>>>> person
> > >>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
> the
> > >>>> whole.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then
> stealing,
> > >> lying,
> > >>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as
those
> > >> can
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> means
> > >>>>>>>>>> of survival.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
> > >>>>>>>>>> differences
> > >>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
> > >>>>>>>>>> societies
> > >>>>>>>> even
> > >>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured
into
> any
> > >>>> form
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
> > >>>>>>>>>> relationships,
> > >>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual,
they
> > >>>>>>>>>> aren't
> > >>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes
> to
> > >> make
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There
would
> > >>>>>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at
the
> > >>>>>>>>>> time,
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
> person
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> person,
> > >>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons
would
> > >>>>>>>>>> either
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
> > >>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>> their
> > >>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
> > >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
> > >>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
> were
> > >>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no
> consequences
> > >> of
> > >>>>>> either,
> > >>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
> > >>>>>>>>>> consequence
> > >>>>>>>> - it
> > >>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
> both
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>> whether
> > >>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong
decisions.
> > >> With
> > >>>>>>>> moral
> > >>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to
evaluate
> > >> drastically
> > >>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency
> in
> > >> reasoning
> > >>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
> Even
> > >>>> when
> > >>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without
that
> > >>>>>>>>>> option
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would
be
> > >> no
> > >>>> power
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
> and
> > >>>> loving
> > >>>>>>>> God
> > >>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see
God
> > >> in
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> way
> > >>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
> > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > >>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to
consider
> > >>>>>>>>>> insulting,
> > >>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
> > >>>>>>>>>> concept;
> > >>>>>>>> and 2)
> > >>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
> trump
> > >>>> greed
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
> planet.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dedric
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
> > >>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have
a
> > >> strong
> > >>>>>>>> morals
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> response
> > >>>>>> pretty
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
> and
> > >>>> even
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> violence
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the
single
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> largest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world.
> We
> > >> ignore
> > >>>>>>>> car
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
> the
> > >>>> Pope
> > >>>>>>>> quote
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
> > >>>>>> religion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
> > >>>>>>>> might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything
else
> > >> in
> > >>>> many
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> talked
> > >>>>>> to,
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > >>>>>>>> world
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we
have
> > >> here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> People
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do.
> At
> > >> best,
> > >>>>>>>> their
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country
under
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> threat
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> country
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn
on
> our
> > >>>> own
> > >>>>>>>>>>> country
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
> this
> > >>>> kind
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
> correct
> > >>>> thing
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> do.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in
God,
> > >> and
> > >>>>>> hence
> > >>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
> choice
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the
name
> > >> of
> > >>>> Allah
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> 24
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but
there
> > >> is
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>> sad,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one
should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> fear
> > >>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
> personal
> > >>>> whims
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one
day.
> > >> That
> > >>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes
in
> God
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some
false
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> hope
> > >>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
> wrong,
> > >>>> then
> > >>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that
we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
> the
> > >>>> President
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no
belief
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> really
> > >>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
> > >>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What
reference
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> point
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
> belief
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
> for
> > >>>> others?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a
> guy
> > >> Islam
> > >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we
do
> on
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> forum
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> intent
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> take
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
> goal
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> give
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide
to
> > >> not
> > >>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity
> from
> > >> public
> > >>>>>>>>>>> view.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
> public
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes,
> is
> > >> to
> > >>>>>> outlaw
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see
> the
> > >> world
> > >>>>>>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > >>>>>> wins
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> validity
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
> maintain
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> balance
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our
trust
> in
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> very
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
> fallible
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of
> 10
> > >> hours
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> work
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene
> Lennon"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political
thread
> > >> -...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even
scarier
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good
> thing
> > >> as
> > >>>>>> he
> > >>>>>>>> sees
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > >>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
> that
> > >>>> he
> > >>>>>>>>>>> depicts
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a
bit
> of
> > >>>> trouble
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
> > >>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>>>>> down
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 59
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> `
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72736 is a reply to message #72705] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 15:29 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Dems are completely screwed because they _at least_ rolled over to a one.
On the whole program, from start to finish. People forget Patriot I was Clinton
legislation in reaction to Oklahoma City, Patriot II just took another nibble
at what (little) was left of the constitution.
Unlike most people, I was a loud critic of this war _before_ it started.
This was because I know what the US has done previously in Southeast Asia,
Central America, and so on. We've invaded nearly every country south of the
Mexican border at least twice, some more. The Dominican Republic had Marines
there five time in the twentieth century, a country that couldn't defeat
the Albany PD on a good day. Every time we've invaded another country it
was to save it from a) itself or b) the evil empire. After reading in the
1980's about the terrifying strategic threats posed by Guatemala, Grenada,
Nicarauga, and Panama I decided I'd be a bit skeptical henceforth.
But I remember seeing two of the most prominent Dems, Joe Lieberman and Hillary
Clinton, on TV in the run up the war. Both were demanding to know why Bush
hadn't invaded Iraq already. Why we weren't using bigger bombs on more people
far faster etc. and so forth. And I said to myself, 'Well, that's the end
of the Democratic party.' And it's hard to feel terribly nostalgic for it.
And, as you say Deej, now all effort is being made to blame the CIA because
if we don't blame them we might actually blame the cringing sycophants we
elected to represent We the People in Congress Assembled. Ironically it was
the CIA that was most cautious about the Iraq war. The CIA may be a bunch
of loathesome spooks who the US would assassinate if they did to us what
they do to other countries in our name, but that doesn't make them wrong
or stupid.
But I always say, think of two things about the current various wars on terror.
Who at the very least paid for the training and equipping of Osama and his
boys? During the brutal ten year Iran-Iraq war, did the US support one side
with money or military equipment, and if so which side?
Both parties should pay for what they've done, neither will,
TCB
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>
>How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
>created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and blame
>for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote against
>it.
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
>>
>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>
>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments was
>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>
>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
>> for domestic political ends.
>>
>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and Bush
>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>
>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>
>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f3862@linux...
>> >> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
>of
>> >> the threat.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> >> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>> >> before the 9/11 attack.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>> >>
>> >> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
>> >> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>> >> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>> >
>> > I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has always
>been
>> > the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
>> > accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that Bush,
>> > Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion
of
>> > Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
they
>> > were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
>stomach
>> > the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our intelligence
>> > services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
>decisions
>> > made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first place.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Deej
>> >
>> >
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -Jamie
>> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> DJ wrote:
>> >>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
of
>> > some
>> >>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
>the
>> >>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>news:450f0b12@linux...
>> >>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
>> > it's
>> >>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others
>> > do
>> >>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
>> > well,
>> >>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money
>> > and
>> >>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
>> >>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
>> >>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
>have
>> >>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
How
>> > do
>> >>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon
in
>> >>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>> >>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to
>get
>> >>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>> >>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>> >>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
>> > holy
>> >>>> about war.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> -Jamie
>> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> DJ wrote:
>> >>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
>Quaeda
>> >>> just
>> >>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and
the
>> >>> west
>> >>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert
to
>> >>> Islam. So
>> >>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > news:450ee7ef@linux...
>> >>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of
our
>> >>> own.
>> >>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> DJ wrote:
>> >>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
>line
>> > is
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:450ec970@linux...
>> >>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
not
>> > for
>> >>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
>> > even
>> >>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things
>have
>> >>>>> been
>> >>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>> > Christians.
>> >>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
>> > extremist
>> >>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps
>seem
>> >>> to
>> >>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
>> >>> hungry
>> >>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious
>> > wars
>> >>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists"
>> > or
>> >>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think
>a
>> >>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
It
>> >>>>> doesn't
>> >>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>> >>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
too.
>> >>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
>does
>> >>> that
>> >>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have
>been
>> >>> an
>> >>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
very
>> >>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
>hung
>> > on
>> >>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
>universe
>> >>>>> while
>> >>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes
>the
>> >>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>> >>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
>> >>> about
>> >>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
>> > clever
>> >>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
>> > ago,
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
>> > who,
>> >>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
>> > evidence
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing,
>and
>> >>> who
>> >>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay
big
>> >>> bucks
>> >>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who
>push
>> >>> to
>> >>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing,
>> > our
>> >>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
>> > sometimes
>> >>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
ways
>> > to
>> >>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
>> >>>>> spreading
>> >>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
>> > power.
>> >>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and
>the
>> >>>>> focus
>> >>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
>> > victory.
>> >>>>> ;^)
>> >>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>> >>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>> >>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University
of
>> >>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>> >>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law
of
>> >>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>> >>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
>Benedict
>> >>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
>humanists
>> >>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>> >>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>> >>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>> >>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>> >>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>> >>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>> >>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>> >>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>> >>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>> >>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>> >>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>> >>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>> >>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>> >>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him
of
>> >>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam
>and
>> >>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>> >>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>> >>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>> >>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
>The
>> >>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>> >>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not
be
>> >>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>> >>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>> >>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>> >>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>> >>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>> >>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’
>to
>> >>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>> >>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
>philosophy—hence
>> >>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>> >>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
>than
>> >>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>> >>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>> >>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>> >>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>> >>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope
>to
>> >>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>> >>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>> >>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>> >>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
not
>> >>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
and
>> >>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>> >>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
not
>> >>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>> >>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>> >>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point
is
>> >>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>> >>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad
— is
>> >>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>> >>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging
a
>> >>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>> >>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>> >>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>> >>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>> >>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>> >>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than
in
>> >>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
>Islamists
>> >>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>> >>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
of
>> >>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>> >>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>> >>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>editorializes:
>> >>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>> >>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>> >>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>> >>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> >>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>> >>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
>united
>> >>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>> >>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>> >>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
>of
>> >>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
is
>> >>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
>insult.
>> >>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
>of
>> >>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>> >>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>> >>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>> >>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>> >>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>> >>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>> >>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
can
>> >>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>> >>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>> >>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>> >>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>> >>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>> >>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>> >>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>> >>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>> >>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>> >>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having
to
>> >>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>> >>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
>or
>> >>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
>great
>> >>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners
in
>> >>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72738 is a reply to message #72717] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 15:32 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based their
decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the Clinton
administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other reason
than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas to
office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and yes.......it
could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the white
House.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
>
> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
> on a number of counts.
>
> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>
> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some of
> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>
> They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
> government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
> overall, domestically and internationally.
>
> Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
> At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
> those in charge now.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
> > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> >
> > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
> > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
blame
> > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
against
> > it.
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
> >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
> >> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
> >>
> >> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
was
> >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
> >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
> >>
> >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
> >> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
> >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
> >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
> >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
> >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
> >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
> >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
> >> for domestic political ends.
> >>
> >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
Bush
> >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
> >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
> >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
> >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> >>
> >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
> >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> >>
> >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450f3862@linux...
> >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
> > of
> >>>> the threat.
> >>> Agreed.
> >>>
> >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
> >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> >>>>
> >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
overreacting
> >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
always
> > been
> >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
> >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
Bush,
> >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion
of
> >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
they
> >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
> > stomach
> >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
intelligence
> >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
> > decisions
> >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
place.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Deej
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
of
> >>> some
> >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
> > the
> >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:450f0b12@linux...
> >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
> >>> it's
> >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
others
> >>> do
> >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
> >>> well,
> >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
money
> >>> and
> >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
> >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
> >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
> > have
> >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
How
> >>> do
> >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon
in
> >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
Iraq.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to
> > get
> >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
> >>> holy
> >>>>>> about war.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
> > Quaeda
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and
the
> >>>>> west
> >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
> >>>>> Islam. So
> >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of
our
> >>>>> own.
> >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
> > line
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
not
> >>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
> >>> even
> >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things
> > have
> >>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> >>> Christians.
> >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
> >>> extremist
> >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps
> > seem
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
> >>>>> hungry
> >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
religious
> >>> wars
> >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
"secularists"
> >>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I
think
> > a
> >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
It
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
too.
> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
> > does
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have
> > been
> >>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
very
> >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
> > hung
> >>> on
> >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
> > universe
> >>>>>>> while
> >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes
> > the
> >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is
only
> >>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
> >>> clever
> >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
> >>> ago,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
contrary.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
> >>> who,
> >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
> >>> evidence
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing,
> > and
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay
big
> >>>>> bucks
> >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who
> > push
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
blazing,
> >>> our
> >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
> >>> sometimes
> >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
ways
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> >>>>>>> spreading
> >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
> >>> power.
> >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and
> > the
> >>>>>>> focus
> >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
> >>> victory.
> >>>>>>> ;^)
> >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
belief
> >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
> > Benedict
> >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
> > humanists
> >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
clash
> >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
Manuel
> >>>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
there
> >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command
> >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam
> > and
> >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
> > The
> >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not
be
> >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
created
> >>>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’
> > to
> >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> >>>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
> > philosophy—hence
> >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
“Left’
> >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
> > than
> >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western
“Left”
> >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
cleric
> >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope
> > to
> >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> >>>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope
’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
not
> >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
and
> >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
not
> >>>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> >>>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad —
is
> >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging
a
> >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual
’
> >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> > Islamists
> >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
demand
> >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
of
> >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
secularist
> >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> > editorializes:
> >>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the
Islamists,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
> > united
> >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
is
> >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
> > insult.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience
’
> >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
can
> >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
apart.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their
pact
> >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
collapse
> >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having
to
> >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
> > or
> >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
> > great
> >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners
in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72740 is a reply to message #72738] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 16:41 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Our situation is directly related to more than half a century of our
decisions and actions, smart and stupid.
It's of limited usefulness to hone in on the last administration as if
that's the entire problem, surely you would have to take into account
decisions made before then and since then.
So while I agree with your point to an extent, it's insufficient to
inoculate the current admin from its own significant problems.
Bill and George aren't running again so we don't have to argue that one.
I am not writing off either major party or a third party, but we need a
change on many levels.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
>> But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>
> Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based their
> decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the Clinton
> administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other reason
> than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
> misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas to
> office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and yes.......it
> could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
> legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the white
> House.
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
>> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
>> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
>> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
>> on a number of counts.
>>
>> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
>> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>>
>> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
>> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some of
>> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>>
>> They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
>> government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
>> overall, domestically and internationally.
>>
>> Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
>> At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
>> those in charge now.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>
>>> How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
>>> created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
> blame
>>> for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
> against
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
>>>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>>>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>>>
>>>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
> was
>>>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
>>>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>>>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>>>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
>>>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>>>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>>>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
>>>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>>>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
>>>> for domestic political ends.
>>>>
>>>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
> Bush
>>>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
>>>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
>>>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
>>>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>>>
>>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>>
>>>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450f3862@linux...
>>>>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
>>> of
>>>>>> the threat.
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>>>>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> overreacting
>>>>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>>>>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>>>>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
> always
>>> been
>>>>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
>>>>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
> Bush,
>>>>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion
> of
>>>>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
> they
>>>>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
>>> stomach
>>>>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> intelligence
>>>>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
>>> decisions
>>>>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
> place.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Deej
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
> of
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
>>> the
>>>>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:450f0b12@linux...
>>>>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
> others
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
> money
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
>>>>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
>>>>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
>>> have
>>>>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
> How
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon
> in
>>>>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
> Iraq.
>>>>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>>>>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to
>>> get
>>>>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>>>>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>>>>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
>>>>> holy
>>>>>>>> about war.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
>>> Quaeda
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and
> the
>>>>>>> west
>>>>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
>>>>>>> Islam. So
>>>>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of
> our
>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
>>> line
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
> not
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things
>>> have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>>>>> Christians.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
>>>>> extremist
>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps
>>> seem
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
>>>>>>> hungry
>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
> religious
>>>>> wars
>>>>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> "secularists"
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I
> think
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
> It
>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
>>> does
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have
>>> been
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
> very
>>>>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
>>> hung
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
>>> universe
>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is
> only
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
>>>>> clever
>>>>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
>>>>> ago,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
> contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
>>>>> who,
>>>>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing,
>>> and
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay
> big
>>>>>>> bucks
>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who
>>> push
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
> blazing,
>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
> ways
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
>>>>>>>>> spreading
>>>>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
>>>>> power.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
>>>>> victory.
>>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
> belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
>>> Benedict
>>>>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
>>> humanists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
> clash
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
> Manuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
> command
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not
> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
> created
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
>>> philosophy—hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
> “Left’
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western
> “Left”
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
> cleric
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope
> ’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad —
> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging
> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual
> ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>>>>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
>>> Islamists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
> demand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
> secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>>> editorializes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the
> Islamists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
>>> united
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
>>> insult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience
> ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
> apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their
> pact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
> collapse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having
> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners
> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72742 is a reply to message #72738] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 16:49 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that right?
Cuz that seems absurd to me.
Just sayin'.
Jimmy
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:4510721c@linux...
> >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>
> Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based their
> decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
Clinton
> administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other reason
> than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
> misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas to
> office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
yes.......it
> could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
> legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the
white
> House.
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
> >
> > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
> > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
> > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
> > on a number of counts.
> >
> > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
> > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> >
> > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
> > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some of
> > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
> >
> > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
> > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
> > overall, domestically and internationally.
> >
> > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
> > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
> > those in charge now.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >
> >
> >
> > DJ wrote:
> > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
last
> > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> > >
> > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
> > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
> blame
> > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
> against
> > > it.
> > >
> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450f8aec@linux...
> > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
> > >> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
> > >>
> > >> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
> was
> > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
> > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
> > >>
> > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
> > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
> > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed
to
> > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
> > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
> > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
> > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
> > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
terrorism"
> > >> for domestic political ends.
> > >>
> > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
> Bush
> > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
> > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
government,
> > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
> > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> > >>
> > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
last
> > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> > >>
> > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> -Jamie
> > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> DJ wrote:
> > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450f3862@linux...
> > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the
nature
> > > of
> > >>>> the threat.
> > >>> Agreed.
> > >>>
> > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
> > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> overreacting
> > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
> always
> > > been
> > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based
on
> > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
> Bush,
> > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
invasion
> of
> > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
> they
> > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
> > > stomach
> > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> intelligence
> > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
> > > decisions
> > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
> place.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Deej
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> -Jamie
> > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> DJ wrote:
> > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
> of
> > >>> some
> > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we
blow
> > > the
> > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > news:450f0b12@linux...
> > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not
news,
> > >>> it's
> > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
> others
> > >>> do
> > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid
as
> > >>> well,
> > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
> money
> > >>> and
> > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly.
It
> > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a
declared
> > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
> > > have
> > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
> How
> > >>> do
> > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
balloon
> in
> > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
> Iraq.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying
to
> > > get
> > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is
nothing
> > >>> holy
> > >>>>>> about war.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
> > > Quaeda
> > >>>>> just
> > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and
> the
> > >>>>> west
> > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert
to
> > >>>>> Islam. So
> > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
defense?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of
> our
> > >>>>> own.
> > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
> > > line
> > >>> is
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
> not
> > >>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
sects,
> > >>> even
> > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
things
> > > have
> > >>>>>>> been
> > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> > >>> Christians.
> > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
> > >>> extremist
> > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
camps
> > > seem
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more
power
> > >>>>> hungry
> > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
> religious
> > >>> wars
> > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> "secularists"
> > >>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I
> think
> > > a
> > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
> It
> > >>>>>>> doesn't
> > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
> too.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
> > > does
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
have
> > > been
> > >>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
> very
> > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
> > > hung
> > >>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
> > > universe
> > >>>>>>> while
> > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
describes
> > > the
> > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
similarly
> > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is
> only
> > >>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations
and
> > >>> clever
> > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
centuries
> > >>> ago,
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
> contrary.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
churches
> > >>> who,
> > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
> > >>> evidence
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
clothing,
> > > and
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay
> big
> > >>>>> bucks
> > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain.
Who
> > > push
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
> blazing,
> > >>> our
> > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
> > >>> sometimes
> > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
> ways
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And
in
> > >>>>>>> spreading
> > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them
in
> > >>> power.
> > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason
and
> > > the
> > >>>>>>> focus
> > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
> > >>> victory.
> > >>>>>>> ;^)
> > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
interested.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's University
of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a
God
> > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law
of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
> belief
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words.
> > > Benedict
> > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
> > > humanists
> > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded
the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
> > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
> clash
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
> Manuel
> > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
> command
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
> > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
Shiite
> > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him
of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on
Islam
> > > and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage
that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point.
> > > The
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to
force
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need
not
> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's
only
> > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
> created
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of
some
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
'offense'
> > > to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
> > > philosophy-hence
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
> "Left'
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
> > > than
> > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western
> "Left"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
> cleric
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the
Pope
> > > to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope
was,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
"Pope
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The
Pope
> 's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
> > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point
is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world
over
> > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war -
jihad -
> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In
saying
> > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are
waging
> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this
jihad.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
'spiritual
> '
> > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the
flip
> > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than
in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> > > Islamists
> > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
> demand
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
> secularist
> > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> > > editorializes:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
> > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the
> Islamists,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
While
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
> > > united
> > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from
the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization
of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with
any
> > > of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an
> > > insult.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
description
> > > of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
Professor
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who)
then
> > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
'conscience
> '
> > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a
community
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
> apart.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
globalization
> > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
world,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
secularist
> > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their
> pact
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
> collapse
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is
having
> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
(word
> > > or
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to this
> > > great
> > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
partners
> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72756 is a reply to message #72740] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 18:43 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill is most certainly running again......he's just wearing a dress this
time.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45107e39@linux...
>
> Our situation is directly related to more than half a century of our
> decisions and actions, smart and stupid.
>
> It's of limited usefulness to hone in on the last administration as if
> that's the entire problem, surely you would have to take into account
> decisions made before then and since then.
>
> So while I agree with your point to an extent, it's insufficient to
> inoculate the current admin from its own significant problems.
>
> Bill and George aren't running again so we don't have to argue that one.
> I am not writing off either major party or a third party, but we need a
> change on many levels.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> >> But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> >> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
> >
> > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
their
> > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
Clinton
> > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
reason
> > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
> > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas
to
> > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
yes.......it
> > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
> > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the
white
> > House.
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
> >> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
> >> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
> >> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
> >> on a number of counts.
> >>
> >> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
> >> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> >>
> >> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
> >> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some
of
> >> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
backwards
> >> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
> >>
> >> They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
> >> government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
> >> overall, domestically and internationally.
> >>
> >> Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
> >> At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
> >> those in charge now.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
last
> >>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> >>>
> >>> How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
> >>> created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
> > blame
> >>> for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
> > against
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450f8aec@linux...
> >>>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
> >>>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
> >>>>
> >>>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
> > was
> >>>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
> >>>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
> >>>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
> >>>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed
to
> >>>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
> >>>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
> >>>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
> >>>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
> >>>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
terrorism"
> >>>> for domestic political ends.
> >>>>
> >>>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
> > Bush
> >>>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
> >>>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
government,
> >>>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
> >>>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> >>>>
> >>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
last
> >>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> >>>>
> >>>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:450f3862@linux...
> >>>>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the
nature
> >>> of
> >>>>>> the threat.
> >>>>> Agreed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
> >>>>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> > overreacting
> >>>>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> >>>>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> >>>>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
> > always
> >>> been
> >>>>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based
on
> >>>>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
> > Bush,
> >>>>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
invasion
> > of
> >>>>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
> > they
> >>>>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
> >>> stomach
> >>>>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> > intelligence
> >>>>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
> >>> decisions
> >>>>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
> > place.
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Deej
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
> > of
> >>>>> some
> >>>>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we
blow
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:450f0b12@linux...
> >>>>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not
news,
> >>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
> > others
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid
as
> >>>>> well,
> >>>>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
> > money
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly.
It
> >>>>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a
declared
> >>>>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
> > How
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
balloon
> > in
> >>>>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
> > Iraq.
> >>>>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> >>>>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying
to
> >>> get
> >>>>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> >>>>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> >>>>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is
nothing
> >>>>> holy
> >>>>>>>> about war.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
> >>> Quaeda
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and
> > the
> >>>>>>> west
> >>>>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert
to
> >>>>>>> Islam. So
> >>>>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
defense?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> >>>>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of
> > our
> >>>>>>> own.
> >>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
> >>> line
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
> > not
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
sects,
> >>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
things
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> >>>>> Christians.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
> >>>>> extremist
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
camps
> >>> seem
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more
power
> >>>>>>> hungry
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
> > religious
> >>>>> wars
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> > "secularists"
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I
> > think
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
> > It
> >>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
> > too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
> >>> does
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
have
> >>> been
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
> > very
> >>>>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
> >>> hung
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
> >>> universe
> >>>>>>>>> while
> >>>>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
describes
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
similarly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is
> > only
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations
and
> >>>>> clever
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
centuries
> >>>>> ago,
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
> > contrary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
churches
> >>>>> who,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
> >>>>> evidence
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
clothing,
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay
> > big
> >>>>>>> bucks
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain.
Who
> >>> push
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
> > blazing,
> >>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
> >>>>> sometimes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
> > ways
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And
in
> >>>>>>>>> spreading
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them
in
> >>>>> power.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason
and
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> focus
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
> >>>>> victory.
> >>>>>>>>> ;^)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
interested.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a
God
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
> > belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
> >>> Benedict
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
> >>> humanists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
> > clash
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
> > Manuel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
> > there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
> > command
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
Shiite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on
Islam
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage
that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
> >>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to
force
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need
not
> > be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s
only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
> > created
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of
some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
‘offense’
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
> >>> philosophy—hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
> > “Left’
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
> >>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western
> > “Left”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
> > cleric
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the
Pope
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope
was,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
“Pope
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The
Pope
> > ’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
> > not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
> > and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
> > not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point
is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world
over
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war —
jihad —
> > is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In
saying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are
waging
> > a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this
jihad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your
‘spiritual
> > ’
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the
flip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than
in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> >>> Islamists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
> > demand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
> > secularist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> >>> editorializes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the
> > Islamists,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
While
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
> >>> united
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with
any
> >>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
> > is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
> >>> insult.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
description
> >>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
Professor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who)
then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
‘conscience
> > ’
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
> > can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a
community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
> > apart.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
believe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
globalization
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
world,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
secularist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their
> > pact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
> > collapse
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is
having
> > to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
(word
> >>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
> >>> great
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
partners
> > in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72757 is a reply to message #72742] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 18:51 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result of
the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby giving
aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country so
divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair share to
defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and the lack
of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every turn on
Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton would
have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great *international
leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but he
didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:45108022@linux...
> So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that right?
>
> Cuz that seems absurd to me.
>
> Just sayin'.
>
> Jimmy
>
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:4510721c@linux...
> > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
> >
> > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
their
> > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
> Clinton
> > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
reason
> > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
> > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas
to
> > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
> yes.......it
> > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
> > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the
> white
> > House.
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
> > >
> > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
> > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
> > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
> > > on a number of counts.
> > >
> > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
> > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> > >
> > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
controlled
> > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some
of
> > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
backwards
> > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
> > >
> > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
> > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
> > > overall, domestically and internationally.
> > >
> > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
> > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
> > > those in charge now.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Jamie
> > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DJ wrote:
> > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
> last
> > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> > > >
> > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that
they
> > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
> > blame
> > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
> > against
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450f8aec@linux...
> > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
> > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
government.
> > > >>
> > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
governments
> > was
> > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed
the
> > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
> > > >>
> > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
> > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
> > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed
> to
> > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
> > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
> > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed
to
> > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
> > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
> terrorism"
> > > >> for domestic political ends.
> > > >>
> > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
> > Bush
> > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of
the
> > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
> government,
> > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
> > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> > > >>
> > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
> last
> > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
> > > >>
> > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> -Jamie
> > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> DJ wrote:
> > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:450f3862@linux...
> > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the
> nature
> > > > of
> > > >>>> the threat.
> > > >>> Agreed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999,
well
> > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> > overreacting
> > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
> > always
> > > > been
> > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based
> on
> > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
> > Bush,
> > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
> invasion
> > of
> > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's
before
> > they
> > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
> > > > stomach
> > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> > intelligence
> > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
> > > > decisions
> > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
> > place.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Deej
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>> -Jamie
> > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> DJ wrote:
> > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
indication
> > of
> > > >>> some
> > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we
> blow
> > > > the
> > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
> > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not
> news,
> > > >>> it's
> > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
> > others
> > > >>> do
> > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid
> as
> > > >>> well,
> > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
> > money
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly.
> It
> > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a
> declared
> > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial
to
> > > > have
> > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole
mess.
> > How
> > > >>> do
> > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
> balloon
> > in
> > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
> > Iraq.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying
> to
> > > > get
> > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group
with
> > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is
> nothing
> > > >>> holy
> > > >>>>>> about war.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>> -Jamie
> > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet.
Al
> > > > Quaeda
> > > >>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now
and
> > the
> > > >>>>> west
> > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to
convert
> to
> > > >>>>> Islam. So
> > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
> defense?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality
of
> > our
> > > >>>>> own.
> > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The
bottom
> > > > line
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
Certainly
> > not
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
> sects,
> > > >>> even
> > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
> things
> > > > have
> > > >>>>>>> been
> > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> > > >>> Christians.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
> > > >>> extremist
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
> camps
> > > > seem
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more
> power
> > > >>>>> hungry
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
> > religious
> > > >>> wars
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> > "secularists"
> > > >>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I
> > think
> > > > a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he
wants.
> > It
> > > >>>>>>> doesn't
> > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality,
Papal
> > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics
here,
> > too.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how
deep
> > > > does
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
> have
> > > > been
> > > >>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which
only
> > very
> > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The
church
> > > > hung
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
> > > > universe
> > > >>>>>>> while
> > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
> describes
> > > > the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
> similarly
> > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is
> > only
> > > >>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations
> and
> > > >>> clever
> > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
> centuries
> > > >>> ago,
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
> > contrary.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
> churches
> > > >>> who,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
ever-mounting
> > > >>> evidence
> > > >>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
> clothing,
> > > > and
> > > >>>>> who
> > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who
pay
> > big
> > > >>>>> bucks
> > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain.
> Who
> > > > push
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
> > blazing,
> > > >>> our
> > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
> > > >>> sometimes
> > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who
find
> > ways
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And
> in
> > > >>>>>>> spreading
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them
> in
> > > >>> power.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason
> and
> > > > the
> > > >>>>>>> focus
> > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
> > > >>> victory.
> > > >>>>>>> ;^)
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
> interested.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
University
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a
> God
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the
law
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
> > belief
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words.
> > > > Benedict
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
> > > > humanists
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded
> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
> > clash
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror.
His
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
alliance
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
> > Manuel
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
> > there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
> > command
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
> Shiite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling
party
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused
him
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on
> Islam
> > > > and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage
> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those
that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
> Muhammad."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the
Pope's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old
point.
> > > > The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to
> force
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need
> not
> > be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's
> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
> > created
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound
by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of
> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
> 'offense'
> > > > to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
> > > > philosophy-hence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
> > "Left'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
thought
> > > > than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western
> > "Left"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely
what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
> > cleric
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
mosque,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the
> Pope
> > > > to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope
> was,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
> "Pope
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The
> Pope
> > 's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason
is
> > not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What
Muslims
> > and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare
he
> > not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize"
for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the
point
> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world
> over
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war -
> jihad -
> > is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In
> saying
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are
> waging
> > a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this
> jihad.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
> 'spiritual
> > '
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the
> flip
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear
than
> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> > > > Islamists
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
> > demand
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging
mobs
> > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing
the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
> > secularist
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> > > > editorializes:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the
> > Islamists,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
> While
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent
their
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
> > > > united
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from
> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with
> any
> > > > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic)
God
> > is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an
> > > > insult.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
> description
> > > > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern
French
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
> Professor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who)
> then
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
considers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
> 'conscience
> > '
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God,
there
> > can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a
> community
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
> > apart.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
> believe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
> globalization
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
> world,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
> secularist
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their
> > pact
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
> > collapse
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is
> having
> > to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
> (word
> > > > or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to
this
> > > > great
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
> partners
> > in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72758 is a reply to message #72757] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 20:55 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Man.
I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you, but I
don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
actions.
And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
Guess I'm just ignernt.
Jimmy
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:45109ebf@linux...
> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result of
> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby giving
> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country so
> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair share to
> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and the lack
> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every turn on
> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton
would
> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
*international
> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but he
> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
>
>
>
>
> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:45108022@linux...
> > So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that
right?
> >
> > Cuz that seems absurd to me.
> >
> > Just sayin'.
> >
> > Jimmy
> >
> >
> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > news:4510721c@linux...
> > > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> > > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
government.
> > >
> > > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
> their
> > > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
> > Clinton
> > > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
> reason
> > > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the
same
> > > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy
ideas
> to
> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
> > yes.......it
> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the
> > white
> > > House.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:451035a7@linux...
> > > >
> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
between
> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
around.
> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
administration
> > > > on a number of counts.
> > > >
> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> > > >
> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
> controlled
> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at
some
> of
> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
> backwards
> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
government.
> > > >
> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
> > > > those in charge now.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > -Jamie
> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DJ wrote:
> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
> > last
> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
such.
> > > > >
> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that
> they
> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag
and
> > > blame
> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
> > > against
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:450f8aec@linux...
> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
specific
> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
> government.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
> governments
> > > was
> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed
> the
> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and
failed
> > to
> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
Afghanistan;
> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
failed
> to
> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
> > terrorism"
> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector,
and
> > > Bush
> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of
> the
> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
> > government,
> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position
of
> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as
a
> > last
> > > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
such.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > >> -Jamie
> > > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> DJ wrote:
> > > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > news:450f3862@linux...
> > > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the
> > nature
> > > > > of
> > > > >>>> the threat.
> > > > >>> Agreed.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999,
> well
> > > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> > > overreacting
> > > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> > > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> > > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
> > > always
> > > > > been
> > > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be
based
> > on
> > > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt
that
> > > Bush,
> > > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
> > invasion
> > > of
> > > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's
> before
> > > they
> > > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard
to
> > > > > stomach
> > > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> > > intelligence
> > > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for
the
> > > > > decisions
> > > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the
first
> > > place.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Deej
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>> -Jamie
> > > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> DJ wrote:
> > > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
> indication
> > > of
> > > > >>> some
> > > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we
> > blow
> > > > > the
> > > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
> > > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not
> > news,
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest
that
> > > others
> > > > >>> do
> > > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you
afraid
> > as
> > > > >>> well,
> > > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow,
raise
> > > money
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act
accordingly.
> > It
> > > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a
> > declared
> > > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise
beneficial
> to
> > > > > have
> > > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole
> mess.
> > > How
> > > > >>> do
> > > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
> > balloon
> > > in
> > > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than,
say,
> > > Iraq.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm
extremist
> > > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are
trying
> > to
> > > > > get
> > > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and
are
> > > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group
> with
> > > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is
> > nothing
> > > > >>> holy
> > > > >>>>>> about war.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>> -Jamie
> > > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet.
> Al
> > > > > Quaeda
> > > > >>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now
> and
> > > the
> > > > >>>>> west
> > > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to
> convert
> > to
> > > > >>>>> Islam. So
> > > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
> > defense?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with
irrationality
> of
> > > our
> > > > >>>>> own.
> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The
> bottom
> > > > > line
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
> Certainly
> > > not
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
> > sects,
> > > > >>> even
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
> > things
> > > > > have
> > > > >>>>>>> been
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> > > > >>> Christians.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by
certain
> > > > >>> extremist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
> > camps
> > > > > seem
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more
> > power
> > > > >>>>> hungry
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
> > > religious
> > > > >>> wars
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> > > "secularists"
> > > > >>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope.
I
> > > think
> > > > > a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he
> wants.
> > > It
> > > > >>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality,
> Papal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics
> here,
> > > too.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how
> deep
> > > > > does
> > > > >>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
> > have
> > > > > been
> > > > >>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which
> only
> > > very
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The
> church
> > > > > hung
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
> > > > > universe
> > > > >>>>>>> while
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
> > describes
> > > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
> > similarly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth
is
> > > only
> > > > >>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical
interpretations
> > and
> > > > >>> clever
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
> > centuries
> > > > >>> ago,
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
> > > contrary.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
> > churches
> > > > >>> who,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
> ever-mounting
> > > > >>> evidence
> > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
> > clothing,
> > > > > and
> > > > >>>>> who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who
> pay
> > > big
> > > > >>>>> bucks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term
gain.
> > Who
> > > > > push
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
> > > blazing,
> > > > >>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And
who
> > > > >>> sometimes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who
> find
> > > ways
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity.
And
> > in
> > > > >>>>>>> spreading
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep
them
> > in
> > > > >>> power.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of
reason
> > and
> > > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>> focus
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and
declare
> > > > >>> victory.
> > > > >>>>>>> ;^)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
> > interested.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
controversial
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
> University
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in
a
> > God
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the
> law
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
> > > belief
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words.
> > > > > Benedict
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
> > > > > humanists
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
demanded
> > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
enlightened
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of
the
> > > clash
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror.
> His
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
> alliance
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
> > > Manuel
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
and
> > > there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
> > > command
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
legislature
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
> > Shiite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling
> party
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused
> him
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on
> > Islam
> > > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage
> > that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those
> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
> > Muhammad."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the
> Pope's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old
> point.
> > > > > The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to
> > force
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam
need
> > not
> > > be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason,
it's
> > only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
> > > created
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not
bound
> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part
of
> > some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
> > 'offense'
> > > > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the
only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
> > > > > philosophy-hence
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
Western
> > > "Left'
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
> thought
> > > > > than
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
Western
> > > "Left"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely
> what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the
chief
> > > cleric
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
> mosque,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces
the
> > Pope
> > > > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
reason.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope
> > was,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
> > "Pope
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false.
The
> > Pope
> > > 's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by
reason
> is
> > > not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What
> Muslims
> > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to
enter
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare
> he
> > > not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the
so-called
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize"
> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the
> point
> > is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world
> > over
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war -
> > jihad -
> > > is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In
> > saying
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are
> > waging
> > > a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension
against
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this
> > jihad.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
> > 'spiritual
> > > '
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely
the
> > flip
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear
> than
> > in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> > > > > Islamists
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
> > > demand
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging
> mobs
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing
> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
> > > secularist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> > > > > editorializes:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the
> > > Islamists,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
> > While
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent
> their
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They
are
> > > > > united
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger'
from
> > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's
characterization
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up
with
> > any
> > > > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic)
> God
> > > is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as
an
> > > > > insult.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
> > description
> > > > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern
> French
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
> > Professor
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who)
> > then
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
> considers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
> > 'conscience
> > > '
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God,
> there
> > > can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a
> > community
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and
reason
> > > apart.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
> > believe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
> > globalization
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
> > world,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
> > secularist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke
their
> > > pact
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
> > > collapse
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is
> > having
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
Byzantine
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
> > (word
> > > > > or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to
> this
> > > > > great
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
> > partners
> > > in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
disaster.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72760 is a reply to message #72756] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 21:11 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Heh. I'm OK with Hillary running. Maybe Laura should run, too. They both
have experience cleaning up messes left by their husbands...
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> Bill is most certainly running again......he's just wearing a dress this
> time.
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45107e39@linux...
>> Our situation is directly related to more than half a century of our
>> decisions and actions, smart and stupid.
>>
>> It's of limited usefulness to hone in on the last administration as if
>> that's the entire problem, surely you would have to take into account
>> decisions made before then and since then.
>>
>> So while I agree with your point to an extent, it's insufficient to
>> inoculate the current admin from its own significant problems.
>>
>> Bill and George aren't running again so we don't have to argue that one.
>> I am not writing off either major party or a third party, but we need a
>> change on many levels.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>>>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>>> Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
> their
>>> decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
> Clinton
>>> administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
> reason
>>> than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
>>> misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas
> to
>>> office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
> yes.......it
>>> could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
>>> legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the
> white
>>> House.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
>>>> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
>>>> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
>>>> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
>>>> on a number of counts.
>>>>
>>>> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
>>>> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>>>>
>>>> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
>>>> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some
> of
>>>> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
> backwards
>>>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>>>>
>>>> They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
>>>> government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
>>>> overall, domestically and internationally.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
>>>> At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
>>>> those in charge now.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
> last
>>>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
>>>>> created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
>>> blame
>>>>> for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
>>> against
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450f8aec@linux...
>>>>>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>>>>>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
>>> was
>>>>>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
>>>>>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>>>>>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>>>>>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed
> to
>>>>>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>>>>>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>>>>>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
>>>>>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>>>>>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
> terrorism"
>>>>>> for domestic political ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
>>> Bush
>>>>>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
>>>>>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
> government,
>>>>>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
>>>>>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
> last
>>>>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:450f3862@linux...
>>>>>>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the
> nature
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the threat.
>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>>>>>>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
>>> overreacting
>>>>>>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>>>>>>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>>>>>>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
>>> always
>>>>> been
>>>>>>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based
> on
>>>>>>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
>>> Bush,
>>>>>>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
> invasion
>>> of
>>>>>>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
>>> they
>>>>>>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
>>>>> stomach
>>>>>>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
>>> intelligence
>>>>>>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
>>>>> decisions
>>>>>>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
>>> place.
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deej
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
>>> of
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we
> blow
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:450f0b12@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not
> news,
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
>>> others
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid
> as
>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
>>> money
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly.
> It
>>>>>>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a
> declared
>>>>>>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
>>> How
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
> balloon
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>>>>>>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying
> to
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>>>>>>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>>>>>>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is
> nothing
>>>>>>> holy
>>>>>>>>>> about war.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
>>>>> Quaeda
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> west
>>>>>>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert
> to
>>>>>>>>> Islam. So
>>>>>>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
> defense?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of
>>> our
>>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
>>>>> line
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
>>> not
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
> sects,
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
> things
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>>>>>>> Christians.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
>>>>>>> extremist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
> camps
>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more
> power
>>>>>>>>> hungry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
>>> religious
>>>>>>> wars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
>>> "secularists"
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I
>>> think
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
> have
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
>>>>> hung
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
>>>>> universe
>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
> describes
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
> similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is
>>> only
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations
> and
>>>>>>> clever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
> centuries
>>>>>>> ago,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
>>> contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
> churches
>>>>>>> who,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
> clothing,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay
>>> big
>>>>>>>>> bucks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain.
> Who
>>>>> push
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
>>> blazing,
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
>>> ways
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And
> in
>>>>>>>>>>> spreading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them
> in
>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason
> and
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
>>>>>>> victory.
>>>>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
> interested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University
> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a
> God
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law
> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
>>> belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
>>>>> Benedict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
>>>>> humanists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded
> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
>>> clash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
>>> Manuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
>>> command
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
> Shiite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him
> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on
> Islam
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage
> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
> Muhammad.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to
> force
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need
> not
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s
> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
>>> created
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of
> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
> ‘offense’
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
>>>>> philosophy—hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
>>> “Left’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western
>>> “Left”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
>>> cleric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the
> Pope
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope
> was,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
> “Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The
> Pope
>>> ’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point
> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world
> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war —
> jihad —
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In
> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are
> waging
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this
> jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your
> ‘spiritual
>>> ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the
> flip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than
> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
>>>>> Islamists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
>>> demand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
>>> secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>>>>> editorializes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the
>>> Islamists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
> While
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
>>>>> united
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from
> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization
> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with
> any
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
>>>>> insult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
> description
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
> Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who)
> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
> ‘conscience
>>> ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a
> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
>>> apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
> globalization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
> secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their
>>> pact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
>>> collapse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is
> having
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
> (word
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
> partners
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72761 is a reply to message #72760] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 21:12 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'd vote for Caligula before I'd vote for Hillary, but I'd vote for Laura
Bush in a second. Every time I hear her speak or read what she writes she
seems like the level headed smart one in that outfit.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Heh. I'm OK with Hillary running. Maybe Laura should run, too. They both
>have experience cleaning up messes left by their husbands...
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>DJ wrote:
>> Bill is most certainly running again......he's just wearing a dress this
>> time.
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45107e39@linux...
>>> Our situation is directly related to more than half a century of our
>>> decisions and actions, smart and stupid.
>>>
>>> It's of limited usefulness to hone in on the last administration as if
>>> that's the entire problem, surely you would have to take into account
>>> decisions made before then and since then.
>>>
>>> So while I agree with your point to an extent, it's insufficient to
>>> inoculate the current admin from its own significant problems.
>>>
>>> Bill and George aren't running again so we don't have to argue that one.
>>> I am not writing off either major party or a third party, but we need
a
>>> change on many levels.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>>>>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>>>> Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
>> their
>>>> decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
>> Clinton
>>>> administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
>> reason
>>>> than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
>>>> misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas
>> to
>>>> office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
>> yes.......it
>>>> could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
>>>> legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the
>> white
>>>> House.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
>>>>> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
>>>>> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
>>>>> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
>>>>> on a number of counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
>>>>> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
>>>>> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some
>> of
>>>>> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
>> backwards
>>>>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>>>>>
>>>>> They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
>>>>> government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
>>>>> overall, domestically and internationally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
>>>>> At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
>>>>> those in charge now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a
>> last
>>>>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that
they
>>>>>> created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
>>>> blame
>>>>>> for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
>>>> against
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> news:450f8aec@linux...
>>>>>>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>>>>>>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
>>>> was
>>>>>>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed
the
>>>>>>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>>>>>>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>>>>>>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed
>> to
>>>>>>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>>>>>>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>>>>>>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed
to
>>>>>>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>>>>>>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
>> terrorism"
>>>>>>> for domestic political ends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
>>>> Bush
>>>>>>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of
the
>>>>>>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
>> government,
>>>>>>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position
of
>>>>>>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as
a
>> last
>>>>>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:450f3862@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the
>> nature
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the threat.
>>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999,
well
>>>>>>>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
>>>> overreacting
>>>>>>>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>>>>>>>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>>>>>>>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
>>>> always
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based
>> on
>>>>>>>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
>>>> Bush,
>>>>>>>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
>> invasion
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
>>>> they
>>>>>>>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
>>>>>> stomach
>>>>>>>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
>>>> intelligence
>>>>>>>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
>>>>>> decisions
>>>>>>>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
>>>> place.
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deej
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we
>> blow
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:450f0b12@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not
>> news,
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
>>>> others
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid
>> as
>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
>>>> money
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly.
>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a
>> declared
>>>>>>>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial
to
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
>>>> How
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
>> balloon
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>>>>>>>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying
>> to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>>>>>>>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>>>>>>>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is
>> nothing
>>>>>>>> holy
>>>>>>>>>>> about war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet.
Al
>>>>>> Quaeda
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now
and
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> west
>>>>>>>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert
>> to
>>>>>>>>>> Islam. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
>> defense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality
of
>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly
>>>> not
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
>> sects,
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
>> things
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>>>>>>>> Christians.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
>>>>>>>> extremist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
>> camps
>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more
>> power
>>>>>>>>>> hungry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
>>>> religious
>>>>>>>> wars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
>>>> "secularists"
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope.
I
>>>> think
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants.
>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here,
>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how
deep
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
>> have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only
>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
>>>>>> hung
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
>>>>>> universe
>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
>> describes
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
>> similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth
is
>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations
>> and
>>>>>>>> clever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
>> centuries
>>>>>>>> ago,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
>>>> contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
>> churches
>>>>>>>> who,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
>> clothing,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who
pay
>>>> big
>>>>>>>>>> bucks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain.
>> Who
>>>>>> push
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
>>>> blazing,
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
>>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find
>>>> ways
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> spreading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them
>> in
>>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason
>> and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
>>>>>>>> victory.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
>> interested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in
a
>> God
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the
law
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
>>>> belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
>>>>>> Benedict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
>>>>>> humanists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the
>>>> clash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror.
His
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
>>>> Manuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
>>>> command
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
>> Shiite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused
him
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on
>> Islam
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage
>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
>> Muhammad.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to
>> force
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need
>> not
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s
>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
>>>> created
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound
by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of
>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
>> ‘offense’
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
>>>>>> philosophy—hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western
>>>> “Left’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western
>>>> “Left”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief
>>>> cleric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the
>> Pope
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope
>> was,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
>> “Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The
>> Pope
>>>> ’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason
is
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare
he
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize”
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world
>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war —
>> jihad —
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In
>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are
>> waging
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this
>> jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your
>> ‘spiritual
>>>> ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the
>> flip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
>>>>>> Islamists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
>>>> demand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging
mobs
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
>>>> secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>>>>>> editorializes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the
>>>> Islamists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
>> While
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
>>>>>> united
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with
>> any
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic)
God
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
>>>>>> insult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
>> description
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
>> Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who)
>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
>> ‘conscience
>>>> ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a
>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
>>>> apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
>> globalization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
>> secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their
>>>> pact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
>>>> collapse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is
>> having
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
>> (word
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
>> partners
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72763 is a reply to message #72758] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 22:17 |
Deej
Messages: 130
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Man.
>
>I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you, but
I
>don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
>
>Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
>
>I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
>actions.
>
>And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
>
>Guess I'm just ignernt.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>news:45109ebf@linux...
>> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result
of
>> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby giving
>> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country so
>> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair share
to
>> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and the
lack
>> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every turn
on
>> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
>> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton
>would
>> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
>*international
>> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but he
>> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:45108022@linux...
>> > So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that
>right?
>> >
>> > Cuz that seems absurd to me.
>> >
>> > Just sayin'.
>> >
>> > Jimmy
>> >
>> >
>> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> > news:4510721c@linux...
>> > > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>> > > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
>government.
>> > >
>> > > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
>> their
>> > > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the
>> > Clinton
>> > > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
>> reason
>> > > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the
>same
>> > > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy
>ideas
>> to
>> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
>> > yes.......it
>> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
>> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in
the
>> > white
>> > > House.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>news:451035a7@linux...
>> > > >
>> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
>between
>> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
>around.
>> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
>administration
>> > > > on a number of counts.
>> > > >
>> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with
that
>> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>> > > >
>> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
>> controlled
>> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at
>some
>> of
>> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
>> backwards
>> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
>government.
>> > > >
>> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
>> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
>> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
>> > > >
>> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
>> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops
with
>> > > > those in charge now.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > -Jamie
>> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > DJ wrote:
>> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
as a
>> > last
>> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
>such.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that
>> they
>> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag
>and
>> > > blame
>> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they
vote
>> > > against
>> > > > > it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > news:450f8aec@linux...
>> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
>specific
>> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
>> government.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
>> governments
>> > > was
>> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed
>> the
>> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and
>failed
>> > to
>> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
>Afghanistan;
>> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
>failed
>> to
>> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
>> > terrorism"
>> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector,
>and
>> > > Bush
>> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One
of
>> the
>> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
>> > government,
>> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position
>of
>> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
as
>a
>> > last
>> > > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
>such.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Cheers,
>> > > > >> -Jamie
>> > > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> DJ wrote:
>> > > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:450f3862@linux...
>> > > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on
the
>> > nature
>> > > > > of
>> > > > >>>> the threat.
>> > > > >>> Agreed.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999,
>> well
>> > > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
>> > > overreacting
>> > > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>> > > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>> > > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There
has
>> > > always
>> > > > > been
>> > > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be
>based
>> > on
>> > > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt
>that
>> > > Bush,
>> > > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
>> > invasion
>> > > of
>> > > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's
>> before
>> > > they
>> > > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard
>to
>> > > > > stomach
>> > > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
>> > > intelligence
>> > > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for
>the
>> > > > > decisions
>> > > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the
>first
>> > > place.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Regards,
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Deej
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> Cheers,
>> > > > >>>> -Jamie
>> > > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> DJ wrote:
>> > > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
>> indication
>> > > of
>> > > > >>> some
>> > > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do
we
>> > blow
>> > > > > the
>> > > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
>> > > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's
not
>> > news,
>> > > > >>> it's
>> > > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest
>that
>> > > others
>> > > > >>> do
>> > > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you
>afraid
>> > as
>> > > > >>> well,
>> > > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow,
>raise
>> > > money
>> > > > >>> and
>> > > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act
>accordingly.
>> > It
>> > > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with
a
>> > declared
>> > > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise
>beneficial
>> to
>> > > > > have
>> > > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole
>> mess.
>> > > How
>> > > > >>> do
>> > > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
>> > balloon
>> > > in
>> > > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than,
>say,
>> > > Iraq.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm
>extremist
>> > > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are
>trying
>> > to
>> > > > > get
>> > > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and
>are
>> > > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group
>> with
>> > > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There
is
>> > nothing
>> > > > >>> holy
>> > > > >>>>>> about war.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
>> > > > >>>>>> -Jamie
>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet.
>> Al
>> > > > > Quaeda
>> > > > >>>>> just
>> > > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war
now
>> and
>> > > the
>> > > > >>>>> west
>> > > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to
>> convert
>> > to
>> > > > >>>>> Islam. So
>> > > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
>> > defense?
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with
>irrationality
>> of
>> > > our
>> > > > >>>>> own.
>> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The
>> bottom
>> > > > > line
>> > > > >>> is
>> > > > >>>>>>> that
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
>> Certainly
>> > > not
>> > > > >>> for
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
>> > sects,
>> > > > >>> even
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
>> > things
>> > > > > have
>> > > > >>>>>>> been
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>> > > > >>> Christians.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by
>certain
>> > > > >>> extremist
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both
>> > camps
>> > > > > seem
>> > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the
more
>> > power
>> > > > >>>>> hungry
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
>> > > religious
>> > > > >>> wars
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
>> > > "secularists"
>> > > > >>> or
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope.
>I
>> > > think
>> > > > > a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he
>> wants.
>> > > It
>> > > > >>>>>>> doesn't
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality,
>> Papal
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics
>> here,
>> > > too.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but
how
>> deep
>> > > > > does
>> > > > >>>>> that
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would
>> > have
>> > > > > been
>> > > > >>>>> an
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which
>> only
>> > > very
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The
>> church
>> > > > > hung
>> > > > >>> on
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of
the
>> > > > > universe
>> > > > >>>>>>> while
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
>> > describes
>> > > > > the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
>> > similarly
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth
>is
>> > > only
>> > > > >>>>> about
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical
>interpretations
>> > and
>> > > > >>> clever
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
>> > centuries
>> > > > >>> ago,
>> > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the
>> > > contrary.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
>> > churches
>> > > > >>> who,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
>> ever-mounting
>> > > > >>> evidence
>> > > > >>>>>>> of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
>> > clothing,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > >>>>> who
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries
who
>> pay
>> > > big
>> > > > >>>>> bucks
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term
>gain.
>> > Who
>> > > > > push
>> > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns
>> > > blazing,
>> > > > >>> our
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And
>who
>> > > > >>> sometimes
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who
>> find
>> > > ways
>> > > > >>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity.
>And
>> > in
>> > > > >>>>>>> spreading
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep
>them
>> > in
>> > > > >>> power.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of
>reason
>> > and
>> > > > > the
>> > > > >>>>>>> focus
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and
>declare
>> > > > >>> victory.
>> > > > >>>>>>> ;^)
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
>> > interested.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
>controversial
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
>> University
>> > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief
in
>a
>> > God
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and
the
>> law
>> > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
>> > > belief
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words.
>> > > > > Benedict
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
>> > > > > humanists
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
>demanded
>> > the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
>enlightened
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis
of
>the
>> > > clash
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror.
>> His
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
>> alliance
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
>> > > Manuel
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
>and
>> > > there
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as
his
>> > > command
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
>legislature
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top
>> > Shiite
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling
>> party
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused
>> him
>> > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks
on
>> > Islam
>> > > > > and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of
rage
>> > that
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those
>> that
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
>> > Muhammad."
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the
>> Pope's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old
>> point.
>> > > > > The
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt
to
>> > force
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam
>need
>> > not
>> > > be
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason,
>it's
>> > only
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is
so
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man
is
>> > > created
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not
>bound
>> by
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part
>of
>> > some
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
>> > 'offense'
>> > > > > to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the
>only
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
>> > > > > philosophy-hence
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
>Western
>> > > "Left'
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
>> thought
>> > > > > than
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
>Western
>> > > "Left"
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely
>> what
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the
>chief
>> > > cleric
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
>> mosque,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces
>the
>> > Pope
>> > > > > to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
>reason.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the
Pope
>> > was,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
>> > "Pope
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false.
>The
>> > Pope
>> > > 's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by
>reason
>> is
>> > > not
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What
>> Muslims
>> > > and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to
>enter
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How
dare
>> he
>> > > not
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the
>so-called
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize"
>> for
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the
>> point
>> > is
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world
>> > over
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war
-
>> > jihad -
>> > > is
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence."
In
>> > saying
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists
are
>> > waging
>> > > a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension
>against
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this
>> > jihad.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
>> > 'spiritual
>> > > '
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise.
The
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely
>the
>> > flip
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear
>> than
>> > in
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November
the
>> > > > > Islamists
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons
and
>> > > demand
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging
>> mobs
>> > > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing
>> the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
>> > > secularist
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>> > > > > editorializes:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology."
The
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the
>> > > Islamists,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
>> > While
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent
>> their
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They
>are
>> > > > > united
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger'
>from
>> > the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's
>characterization
>> > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up
>with
>> > any
>> > > > > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic)
>> God
>> > > is
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen
as
>an
>> > > > > insult.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
>> > description
>> > > > > of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern
>> French
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
>> > Professor
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who)
>> > then
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
>> considers
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
>> > 'conscience
>> > > '
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God,
>> there
>> > > can
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a
>> > community
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and
>reason
>> > > apart.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
>> > believe
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
>> > globalization
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the
>> > world,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
>> > secularist
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke
>their
>> > > pact
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after
the
>> > > collapse
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear
is
>> > having
>> > > to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
>Byzantine
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos
>> > (word
>> > > > > or
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is
to
>> this
>> > > > > great
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
>> > partners
>> > > in
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
>disaster.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72764 is a reply to message #72763] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 22:18 |
Deej
Messages: 130
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Jimmy,
No offense taken here. My point is that we are finishing a war that was
started by Sadaam, not Bush. It was never brought to any conclusion be3cause
the sanctions that were put in place to do this were circumvented and this
was during Clinton's administration. Clinton also instituted a policy
wherein our CIA couldn't work with anyone who had any taint of human rights
abuses and also did everything they could to keep the various intelligence
service and the domestic intelligence services from sharing information.
All
of these things played a huge part in what happened on 9-11 and the crappy
intelligence was what we based the decision on to go in and finish the gulf
war that Sadaam started. Had we accurate intelligence, I'll bet things would
have been handled much differently. You may not agree with this and that's
OK. I'm not going to flog it anymore or Kim's gonna get pissed off at me
and
I might die.
I've said my piece here. If you want to discuss this off the group it's
animix@animas.net.
Regards,
Deej
"Deej" <animix@animass.netttt> wrote:
>
>"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Man.
>>
>>I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you,
but
>I
>>don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
>>
>>Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
>>
>>I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
>>actions.
>>
>>And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
>>
>>Guess I'm just ignernt.
>>
>>Jimmy
>>
>>
>>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>>news:45109ebf@linux...
>>> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result
>of
>>> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby giving
>>> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country so
>>> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair share
>to
>>> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and the
>lack
>>> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every turn
>on
>>> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
>>> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton
>>would
>>> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
>>*international
>>> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but he
>>> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:45108022@linux...
>>> > So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that
>>right?
>>> >
>>> > Cuz that seems absurd to me.
>>> >
>>> > Just sayin'.
>>> >
>>> > Jimmy
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:4510721c@linux...
>>> > > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>>> > > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
>>government.
>>> > >
>>> > > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based
>>> their
>>> > > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of
the
>>> > Clinton
>>> > > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other
>>> reason
>>> > > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the
>>same
>>> > > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy
>>ideas
>>> to
>>> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
>>> > yes.......it
>>> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
>>> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in
>the
>>> > white
>>> > > House.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>news:451035a7@linux...
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
>>between
>>> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
>>around.
>>> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
>>administration
>>> > > > on a number of counts.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with
>that
>>> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
>>> controlled
>>> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at
>>some
>>> of
>>> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
>>> backwards
>>> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
>>government.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
>>> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
>>> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
>>> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops
>with
>>> > > > those in charge now.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cheers,
>>> > > > -Jamie
>>> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > DJ wrote:
>>> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
>as a
>>> > last
>>> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
>>such.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service
that
>>> they
>>> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag
>>and
>>> > > blame
>>> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they
>vote
>>> > > against
>>> > > > > it.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:450f8aec@linux...
>>> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
>>specific
>>> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
>>> government.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
>>> governments
>>> > > was
>>> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed
>>> the
>>> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>>> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>>> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and
>>failed
>>> > to
>>> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
>>Afghanistan;
>>> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>>> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
>>failed
>>> to
>>> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own
state
>>> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
>>> > terrorism"
>>> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector,
>>and
>>> > > Bush
>>> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One
>of
>>> the
>>> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
>>> > government,
>>> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position
>>of
>>> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
>as
>>a
>>> > last
>>> > > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
>>such.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Cheers,
>>> > > > >> -Jamie
>>> > > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> DJ wrote:
>>> > > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> > > news:450f3862@linux...
>>> > > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on
>the
>>> > nature
>>> > > > > of
>>> > > > >>>> the threat.
>>> > > > >>> Agreed.
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999,
>>> well
>>> > > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
>>> > > overreacting
>>> > > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>>> > > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>>> > > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There
>has
>>> > > always
>>> > > > > been
>>> > > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be
>>based
>>> > on
>>> > > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt
>>that
>>> > > Bush,
>>> > > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
>>> > invasion
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's
>>> before
>>> > > they
>>> > > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard
>>to
>>> > > > > stomach
>>> > > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
>>> > > intelligence
>>> > > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush
for
>>the
>>> > > > > decisions
>>> > > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the
>>first
>>> > > place.
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Regards,
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Deej
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>> Cheers,
>>> > > > >>>> -Jamie
>>> > > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> DJ wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
>>> indication
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >>> some
>>> > > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or
do
>we
>>> > blow
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> > > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
>>> > > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's
>not
>>> > news,
>>> > > > >>> it's
>>> > > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest
>>that
>>> > > others
>>> > > > >>> do
>>> > > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you
>>afraid
>>> > as
>>> > > > >>> well,
>>> > > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow,
>>raise
>>> > > money
>>> > > > >>> and
>>> > > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act
>>accordingly.
>>> > It
>>> > > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with
>a
>>> > declared
>>> > > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise
>>beneficial
>>> to
>>> > > > > have
>>> > > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole
>>> mess.
>>> > > How
>>> > > > >>> do
>>> > > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead
>>> > balloon
>>> > > in
>>> > > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than,
>>say,
>>> > > Iraq.
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm
>>extremist
>>> > > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are
>>trying
>>> > to
>>> > > > > get
>>> > > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and
>>are
>>> > > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group
>>> with
>>> > > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There
>is
>>> > nothing
>>> > > > >>> holy
>>> > > > >>>>>> about war.
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
>>> > > > >>>>>> -Jamie
>>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet.
>>> Al
>>> > > > > Quaeda
>>> > > > >>>>> just
>>> > > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war
>now
>>> and
>>> > > the
>>> > > > >>>>> west
>>> > > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to
>>> convert
>>> > to
>>> > > > >>>>> Islam. So
>>> > > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self
>>> > defense?
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> > > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with
>>irrationality
>>> of
>>> > > our
>>> > > > >>>>> own.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The
>>> bottom
>>> > > > > line
>>> > > > >>> is
>>> > > > >>>>>>> that
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> > > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
>>> Certainly
>>> > > not
>>> > > > >>> for
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian
>>> > sects,
>>> > > > >>> even
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher
>>> > things
>>> > > > > have
>>> > > > >>>>>>> been
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
>>> > > > >>> Christians.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by
>>certain
>>> > > > >>> extremist
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of
both
>>> > camps
>>> > > > > seem
>>> > > > >>>>> to
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the
>more
>>> > power
>>> > > > >>>>> hungry
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite
>>> > > religious
>>> > > > >>> wars
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
>>> > > "secularists"
>>> > > > >>> or
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the
Pope.
>>I
>>> > > think
>>> > > > > a
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever
he
>>> wants.
>>> > > It
>>> > > > >>>>>>> doesn't
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality,
>>> Papal
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics
>>> here,
>>> > > too.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but
>how
>>> deep
>>> > > > > does
>>> > > > >>>>> that
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it
would
>>> > have
>>> > > > > been
>>> > > > >>>>> an
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which
>>> only
>>> > > very
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The
>>> church
>>> > > > > hung
>>> > > > >>> on
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of
>the
>>> > > > > universe
>>> > > > >>>>>>> while
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
>>> > describes
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
>>> > similarly
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth
>>is
>>> > > only
>>> > > > >>>>> about
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical
>>interpretations
>>> > and
>>> > > > >>> clever
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
>>> > centuries
>>> > > > >>> ago,
>>> > > > >>>>>>> and
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to
the
>>> > > contrary.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian
>>> > churches
>>> > > > >>> who,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
>>> ever-mounting
>>> > > > >>> evidence
>>> > > > >>>>>>> of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
>>> > clothing,
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > >>>>> who
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries
>who
>>> pay
>>> > > big
>>> > > > >>>>> bucks
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term
>>gain.
>>> > Who
>>> > > > > push
>>> > > > >>>>> to
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our
guns
>>> > > blazing,
>>> > > > >>> our
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And
>>who
>>> > > > >>> sometimes
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives
who
>>> find
>>> > > ways
>>> > > > >>> to
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity.
>>And
>>> > in
>>> > > > >>>>>>> spreading
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep
>>them
>>> > in
>>> > > > >>> power.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of
>>reason
>>> > and
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > >>>>>>> focus
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and
>>declare
>>> > > > >>> victory.
>>> > > > >>>>>>> ;^)
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
>>> > interested.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
>>controversial
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
>>> University
>>> > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief
>in
>>a
>>> > God
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and
>the
>>> law
>>> > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic
>>> > > belief
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words.
>>> > > > > Benedict
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
>>> > > > > humanists
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
>>demanded
>>> > the
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
>>enlightened
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis
>of
>>the
>>> > > clash
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror.
>>> His
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
>>> alliance
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor
>>> > > Manuel
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
>>and
>>> > > there
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as
>his
>>> > > command
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
>>legislature
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's
top
>>> > Shiite
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling
>>> party
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused
>>> him
>>> > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks
>on
>>> > Islam
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of
>rage
>>> > that
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those
>>> that
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
>>> > Muhammad."
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the
>>> Pope's
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old
>>> point.
>>> > > > > The
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt
>to
>>> > force
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam
>>need
>>> > not
>>> > > be
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason,
>>it's
>>> > only
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is
>so
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man
>is
>>> > > created
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not
>>bound
>>> by
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part
>>of
>>> > some
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
>>> > 'offense'
>>> > > > > to
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the
>>only
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
>>> > > > > philosophy-hence
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
>>Western
>>> > > "Left'
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
>>> thought
>>> > > > > than
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
>>Western
>>> > > "Left"
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely
>>> what
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the
>>chief
>>> > > cleric
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
>>> mosque,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces
>>the
>>> > Pope
>>> > > > > to
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
>>reason.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the
>Pope
>>> > was,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes,
>>> > "Pope
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false.
>>The
>>> > Pope
>>> > > 's
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by
>>reason
>>> is
>>> > > not
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What
>>> Muslims
>>> > > and
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to
>>enter
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How
>dare
>>> he
>>> > > not
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the
>>so-called
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize"
>>> for
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the
>>> point
>>> > is
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the
world
>>> > over
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war
>-
>>> > jihad -
>>> > > is
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence."
>In
>>> > saying
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists
>are
>>> > waging
>>> > > a
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension
>>against
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this
>>> > jihad.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
>>> > 'spiritual
>>> > > '
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise.
>The
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely
>>the
>>> > flip
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear
>>> than
>>> > in
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November
>the
>>> > > > > Islamists
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons
>and
>>> > > demand
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging
>>> mobs
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing
>>> the
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
>>> > > secularist
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>>> > > > > editorializes:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology."
>The
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the
>>> > > Islamists,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power.
>>> > While
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent
>>> their
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They
>>are
>>> > > > > united
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger'
>>from
>>> > the
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's
>>characterization
>>> > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound
up
>>with
>>> > any
>>> > > > > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic)
>>> God
>>> > > is
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen
>as
>>an
>>> > > > > insult.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
>>> > description
>>> > > > > of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern
>>> French
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
>>> > Professor
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject
(who)
>>> > then
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
>>> considers
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
>>> > 'conscience
>>> > > '
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God,
>>> there
>>> > > can
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In
this
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create
a
>>> > community
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and
>>reason
>>> > > apart.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They
>>> > believe
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
>>> > globalization
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout
the
>>> > world,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
>>> > secularist
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke
>>their
>>> > > pact
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after
>the
>>> > > collapse
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear
>is
>>> > having
>>> > > to
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
>>Byzantine
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with
logos
>>> > (word
>>> > > > > or
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is
>to
>>> this
>>> > > > > great
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
>>> > partners
>>> > > in
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
>>disaster.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72768 is a reply to message #72715] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 02:08 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i was serious...diplomacy doesn't mean ass kissing...just a position
of reason.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:26:02 -0500, "Tony Benson"
<tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>I'm sensing some sarcasm there Rick. ;>) I would make a terrible diplomat. I
>react far too much from the gut. Beside, it's hard to be a good communicator
>with your foot in your mouth!
>
>I didn't mean to sound harsh to ulfiyya. He (she?) has every right to want
>this group to stick to PARIS related stuff. I guess it just feels more like
>a community to me than a technical reference source.
>
>
>Tony
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
>>i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
>> wasn't going to enter this fray...
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
>> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>
>>>With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
>>>can
>>>discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
>>>more
>>>of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
>>>house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't want
>>>to read.
>>>
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> for ... many times poeple.
>>>> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
>>>> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>>>>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>>>>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>>>>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>>>>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would
>>>> be
>>>>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
>>>>>> point.
>>>>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
>>>> it's
>>>>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>>>>>> Probably
>>>>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's
>>>> sort
>>>>>> of about this very topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just
>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>
>>>>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>>>>
>>>>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>>>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>>>>>> -noun
>>>>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>>>>>>>> ability.
>>>>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>>>>>>>> firm
>>>>>> faith
>>>>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
>>>>>>>> etc.:
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>>>>>>>> engagement,
>>>>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
>>>>>>>> oath,
>>>>>> allegiance,
>>>>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
>>>> through
>>>>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>>>>>>>> faith
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
>>>>>>>>>> Animals
>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married,
>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
>>>>>>>>>>> Religious
>>>>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
>>>>>>>>>>> "faith."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll
>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put together
>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
>>>>>>>>>>> trains,
>>>>>> fly
>>>>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>>>>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
>>>>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> afterlife.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
>>>>>>>>>>> deities.
>>>>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>> violently,
>>>>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>>>>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can be
>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well,
>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
>>>>>>>>>>> ARE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms
>>>> such
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>>>>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery, no
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to
>>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear a
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
>>>>>>>>>>> freedom
>>>>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any
>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system
>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
>>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
>>>>>>>>>>> hijacked
>>>>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> tons
>>>>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of
>>>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>> tells
>>>>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong
>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference
>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws
>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> proven
>>>>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse,
>>>>>>>> anger
>>>>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose
>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing,
>>>> lying,
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those
>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>> of survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>> societies
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to
>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
>>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would
>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> either,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence
>>>>>>>>>> - it
>>>>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions.
>>>> With
>>>>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate
>>>> drastically
>>>>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in
>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that
>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be
>>>> no
>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> loving
>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God
>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> insulting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
>>>>>>>>>>>> concept;
>>>>>>>>>> and 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> trump
>>>>>> greed
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
>>>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a
>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>> morals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violence
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We
>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>>> car
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Pope
>>>>>>>>>> quote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
>>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else
>>>> in
>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have
>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At
>>>> best,
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God,
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name
>>>> of
>>>>>> Allah
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there
>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> sad,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>> whims
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day.
>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> others?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy
>>>> Islam
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to
>>>> not
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from
>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> outlaw
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the
>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>> wins
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10
>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread
>>>> -...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing
>>>> as
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> depicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 59
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> `
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72769 is a reply to message #72720] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 02:11 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i've never seen a sitting moon so....hell yeah. since i quit smoking
2 1/2 yrs ago i no longer get the exercise from coughing i used to.
on second thought that feat has also given me a bigger ass so let me
ponder on that a bit.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:36:51 -0600, "DJ"
<animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Rick,
>
>Do you think it would help if we could just figure out a way to get into the
>UN gallery (do they have a gallery?) and then start mooning people? I want
>to do something constructive instead of sitting around bitching all the
>time.
>
>Deej
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
>> i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
>> wasn't going to enter this fray...
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
>> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>
>> >With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
>can
>> >discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
>more
>> >of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
>> >house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't
>want
>> >to read.
>> >
>> >Tony
>> >
>> >
>> >"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> for ... many times poeple.
>> >> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
>> >> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>> >>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>> >>>
>> >>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>> >>>
>> >>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>> >>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>> >>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>> >>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>> >>>
>> >>>Cheers,
>> >>> -Jamie
>> >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>TCB wrote:
>> >>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that
>would
>> >> be
>> >>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
>point.
>> >>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
>> >> it's
>> >>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>> >>>> Probably
>> >>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and
>it's
>> >> sort
>> >>>> of about this very topic.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-
> 1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-2981628?ie=UTF8&am p;s=books
>> >>>>
>> >>>> TCB
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although
>just
>> >> as
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
>Some
>> >>
>> >>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
>that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>> >>>>> something
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of
>the
>> >>
>> >>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>> >>>>> problem with that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> -Jamie
>> >>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> TCB wrote:
>> >>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> >>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>> >>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> >>>>>> -noun
>> >>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>> >>>>>> ability.
>> >>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
>hypothesis
>> >>>> would
>> >>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>> >>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>> >>>>>> firm
>> >>>> faith
>> >>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>> >>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
>etc.:
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>> >>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>> >>>>>> faith.
>> >>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>> >>>>>> engagement,
>> >>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>> >>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
>oath,
>> >>>> allegiance,
>> >>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>> >>>>>> troubles.
>> >>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
>> >> through
>> >>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
>can
>> >>>> do
>> >>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail,
>but
>> >>>> do
>> >>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>> >>>>>> faith
>> >>>> but
>> >>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> TCB
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>> >>>>>>> definition.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
>Animals
>> >>>> take
>> >>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
>have
>> >>>> faith.
>> >>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get
>married,
>> >> etc.
>> >>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
>> >>>>>>>>> Religious
>> >>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
>"faith."
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
>find
>> >>>> its
>> >>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to
>> >> the
>> >>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll
>> >> see
>> >>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put
>together
>> >> much
>> >>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
>people
>> >>>> would
>> >>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire
>> >>>>>>>>> other
>> >>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
>trains,
>> >>>> fly
>> >>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>> >>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
>have
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
>more
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
>> >>>>>>>>> stories
>> >>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
>afterlife.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
>> >>>>>>>>> deities.
>> >>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
>> >>>>>>>>> violently,
>> >>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
>disagree
>> >>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>> >>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can
>be
>> >> a
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well,
>> >> you
>> >>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
>ARE
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
>saying
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who
>are
>> >>>> not
>> >>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice
>> >> that
>> >>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
>> >>>>>>>>> right
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms
>> >> such
>> >>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>> >>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
>> >>>>>>>>> human
>> >>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery,
>no
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
>common
>> >>>> sense
>> >>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to
>> >>>>>>>>> sort
>> >>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear
>a
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
>> >>>>>>>>> additional
>> >>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
>> >>>>>>>>> freedom
>> >>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any
>> >> one
>> >>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system
>> >>>>>>>>> based
>> >>>>>> on
>> >>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
>> >>>>>>>>> examples
>> >>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
>> >>>>>>>>> hijacked
>> >>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
>> >>>>>>>>> cases.
>> >>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
>and
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought
>to
>> >>>> go
>> >>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
>there
>> >>>> are
>> >>>>>>>> tons
>> >>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of
>> >>>>>>>>>> itself
>> >>>>>>>> tells
>> >>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a
>strong
>> >> sense
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher
>reference
>> >> point,
>> >>>>>>>> what
>> >>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one
>use
>> >> to
>> >>>>>> decide
>> >>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now,
>so
>> >> with
>> >>>>>>>> no
>> >>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws
>> >>>>>>>>>> since
>> >>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to
>accept
>> >> as
>> >>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that
>has
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>>> proven
>> >>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
>> >>>>>>>>>> reasoning
>> >>>>>>>> or
>> >>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
>> >>>>>>>>>> abuse,
>> >>>>>> anger
>> >>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide
>whose
>> >> experience
>> >>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee
>> >> that
>> >>>>>> person
>> >>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
>the
>> >>>> whole.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then
>stealing,
>> >> lying,
>> >>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those
>> >> can
>> >>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>> means
>> >>>>>>>>>> of survival.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
>> >>>>>>>>>> differences
>> >>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
>> >>>>>>>>>> societies
>> >>>>>>>> even
>> >>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into
>any
>> >>>> form
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
>> >>>>>>>>>> relationships,
>> >>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they
>> >>>>>>>>>> aren't
>> >>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes
>to
>> >> make
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would
>> >>>>>>>>>> only
>> >>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the
>> >>>>>>>>>> time,
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
>person
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>>> person,
>> >>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would
>> >>>>>>>>>> either
>> >>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
>> >>>>>>>>>> because
>> >>>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
>> >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>> >>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
>were
>> >>>> no
>> >>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no
>consequences
>> >> of
>> >>>>>> either,
>> >>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
>> >>>>>>>>>> consequence
>> >>>>>>>> - it
>> >>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
>both
>> >>>> in
>> >>>>>> whether
>> >>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions.
>> >> With
>> >>>>>>>> moral
>> >>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate
>> >> drastically
>> >>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency
>in
>> >> reasoning
>> >>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
>Even
>> >>>> when
>> >>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that
>> >>>>>>>>>> option
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be
>> >> no
>> >>>> power
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
>and
>> >>>> loving
>> >>>>>>>> God
>> >>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God
>> >> in
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> way
>> >>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
>> >>>>>>>>>> discuss
>> >>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
>> >>>>>>>>>> insulting,
>> >>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
>> >>>>>>>>>> concept;
>> >>>>>>>> and 2)
>> >>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
>trump
>> >>>> greed
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
>planet.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>> >>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a
>> >> strong
>> >>>>>>>> morals
>> >>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> response
>> >>>>>> pretty
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
>and
>> >>>> even
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> violence
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> largest
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world.
>We
>> >> ignore
>> >>>>>>>> car
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
>the
>> >>>> Pope
>> >>>>>>>> quote
>> >>>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
>> >>>>>> religion
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
>> >>>>>>>> might
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else
>> >> in
>> >>>> many
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> talked
>> >>>>>> to,
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>> world
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have
>> >> here.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> People
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do.
>At
>> >> best,
>> >>>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> country
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on
>our
>> >>>> own
>> >>>>>>>>>>> country
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
>this
>> >>>> kind
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
>correct
>> >>>> thing
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God,
>> >> and
>> >>>>>> hence
>> >>>>>>>>>>> any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
>choice
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>>> believe
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name
>> >> of
>> >>>> Allah
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
>> >>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> 24
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there
>> >> is
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>>> sad,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> fear
>> >>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>> it's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
>personal
>> >>>> whims
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day.
>> >> That
>> >>>>>>>> also
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in
>God
>> >>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>> >>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>> sense
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
>wrong,
>> >>>> then
>> >>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
>the
>> >>>> President
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> really
>> >>>>>>>> better
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
>> >>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> point
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
>belief
>> >>>> in
>> >>>>>> any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
>for
>> >>>> others?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a
>guy
>> >> Islam
>> >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do
>on
>> >>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> forum
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> intent
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> take
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
>goal
>> >>>> is
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> give
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to
>> >> not
>> >>>>>> believe
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity
>from
>> >> public
>> >>>>>>>>>>> view.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
>public
>> >>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes,
>is
>> >> to
>> >>>>>> outlaw
>> >>>>>>>>>>> it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see
>the
>> >> world
>> >>>>>>>> as a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> always
>> >>>>>> wins
>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> validity
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
>maintain
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> balance
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust
>in
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> very
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
>fallible
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of
>10
>> >> hours
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> work
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene
>Lennon"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread
>> >> -...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good
>thing
>> >> as
>> >>>>>> he
>> >>>>>>>> sees
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>> >>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
>that
>> >>>> he
>> >>>>>>>>>>> depicts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit
>of
>> >>>> trouble
>> >>>>>>>>>>> (as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
>> >>>>>> go
>> >>>>>>>>>>> down
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 59
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> `
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72777 is a reply to message #72768] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 09:07 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh, um, cool then! Call me Kiss Jr. ;>)
Tony
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9512h2tegb39563k94p4lf6f5gdgu0srao@4ax.com...
>i was serious...diplomacy doesn't mean ass kissing...just a position
> of reason.
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:26:02 -0500, "Tony Benson"
> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm sensing some sarcasm there Rick. ;>) I would make a terrible diplomat.
>>I
>>react far too much from the gut. Beside, it's hard to be a good
>>communicator
>>with your foot in your mouth!
>>
>>I didn't mean to sound harsh to ulfiyya. He (she?) has every right to want
>>this group to stick to PARIS related stuff. I guess it just feels more
>>like
>>a community to me than a technical reference source.
>>
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>
>>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
>>>i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
>>> wasn't going to enter this fray...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
>>> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
>>>>can
>>>>discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
>>>>more
>>>>of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
>>>>house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't
>>>>want
>>>>to read.
>>>>
>>>>Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> for ... many times poeple.
>>>>> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
>>>>> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>>>>>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>>>>>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>>>>>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>>>>>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that
>>>>>>> would
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no
>>>>>>> XXXXXXXX'
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>>>>>>> Probably
>>>>>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>> sort
>>>>>>> of about this very topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
>>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>>>>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>>>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>>>>>>> -noun
>>>>>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>>>>>>>>> ability.
>>>>>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>>>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>>>>>>>>> firm
>>>>>>> faith
>>>>>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>>>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
>>>>>>>>> etc.:
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>>>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>>>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>>>>>>>>> engagement,
>>>>>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>>>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
>>>>>>>>> oath,
>>>>>>> allegiance,
>>>>>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>>>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>>>>>>>>> faith
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
>>>>>>>>>>> Animals
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get
>>>>>>>>>>> married,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "faith."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
>>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put
>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
>>>>>>>>>>>> trains,
>>>>>>> fly
>>>>>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
>>>>>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>>> afterlife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
>>>>>>>>>>>> deities.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>> violently,
>>>>>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
>>>>>>>>>>>> ARE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of
>>>>>>>>>>>> justice
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
>>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other
>>>>>>>>>>>> freedoms
>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery,
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom
>>>>>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system
>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
>>>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> hijacked
>>>>>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> tons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>>> tells
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference
>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse,
>>>>>>>>> anger
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose
>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealing,
>>>>> lying,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> societies
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequences
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> either,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence
>>>>>>>>>>> - it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>> With
>>>>>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>> drastically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>> no
>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> loving
>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept;
>>>>>>>>>>> and 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trump
>>>>>>> greed
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>> morals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violence
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>>>> car
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Pope
>>>>>>>>>>> quote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
>>>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>> best,
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Allah
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> sad,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>> whims
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> others?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guy
>>>>> Islam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> outlaw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> wins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10
>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lennon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>> -...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 59
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> `
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72788 is a reply to message #72777] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 11:11 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ya mean Mr. KissAss??? now that's sarcasm. ;o)
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:07:56 -0500, "Tony Benson"
<tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>Oh, um, cool then! Call me Kiss Jr. ;>)
>
>Tony
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9512h2tegb39563k94p4lf6f5gdgu0srao@4ax.com...
>>i was serious...diplomacy doesn't mean ass kissing...just a position
>> of reason.
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:26:02 -0500, "Tony Benson"
>> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sensing some sarcasm there Rick. ;>) I would make a terrible diplomat.
>>>I
>>>react far too much from the gut. Beside, it's hard to be a good
>>>communicator
>>>with your foot in your mouth!
>>>
>>>I didn't mean to sound harsh to ulfiyya. He (she?) has every right to want
>>>this group to stick to PARIS related stuff. I guess it just feels more
>>>like
>>>a community to me than a technical reference source.
>>>
>>>
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:k0c0h2hl6cc83qvha4esc96935fo3nqtb1@4ax.com...
>>>>i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
>>>> wasn't going to enter this fray...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
>>>> <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone
>>>>>can
>>>>>discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into
>>>>>more
>>>>>of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
>>>>>house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't
>>>>>want
>>>>>to read.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for ... many times poeple.
>>>>>> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
>>>>>> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>>>>>>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>>>>>>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>>>>>>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>>>>>>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important
>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no
>>>>>>>> XXXXXXXX'
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>>>>>>>> Probably
>>>>>>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>> of about this very topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out.
>>>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>>>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>>>>>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>>>>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>>>>>>>> -noun
>>>>>>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>>>>>>>>>> ability.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>>>>>>>>>> firm
>>>>>>>> faith
>>>>>>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>>>>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
>>>>>>>>>> etc.:
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>>>>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>>>>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>>>>>>>>>> engagement,
>>>>>>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>>>>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
>>>>>>>>>> oath,
>>>>>>>> allegiance,
>>>>>>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>>>>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as
>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>>>>>>>>>> faith
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.'
>>>>>>>>>>>> Animals
>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get
>>>>>>>>>>>> married,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "faith."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trains,
>>>>>>>> fly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific questions about reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterlife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> violently,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justice
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedoms
>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijacked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>> >from here, whenever we next get together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jimmy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> tons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>>>> tells
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference
>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is right and wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse,
>>>>>>>>>> anger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose
>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealing,
>>>>>> lying,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> societies
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequences
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> either,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence
>>>>>>>>>>>> - it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would just be another event in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>> With
>>>>>>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>> drastically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> loving
>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept;
>>>>>>>>>>>> and 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trump
>>>>>>>> greed
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> morals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violence
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>> car
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Pope
>>>>>>>>>>>> quote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
>>>>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Allah
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commandments
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> sad,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>> whims
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accompanies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disbelief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> others?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guy
>>>>>> Islam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> outlaw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>> wins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10
>>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lennon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>> -...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 59
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> `
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72799 is a reply to message #72764] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 18:07 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sorry, brother. There's too much evidence that Bush and Co. were really,
really, really eager to invade Iraq, even in the face of well-documented
evidence that they were barking up the wrong tree, even that they knew they
were barking up the wrong tree. It's a matter of record that the CIA was
skeptical about the "slam-dunk" theory of WMDs, as espoused unequivocally by
Cheney over and over again before the invasion.
There are documents dating from the mid-'90s showing key Bush administration
officials and advisors making concrete, detailed plans to make an example of
Iraq by invading it and "nation building" it into an ally. That certainly
had nothing to do with Clinton's administration.The general consensus on the
part of most reasonable folk is that Iraq was a dead-center target for Bush,
et al, looooong before he got elected.
Frankly, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the invasion occurred. I
said to myself, maybe they're right. Maybe we win, things shift in the
Mid-East, we're all happier. Didn't work out that way.
We didn't have to do it. Fact is, certain now-powerful neo-cons had been
fantasizing about it for a decade or more when Bush took office, and they
seized the opportunity and made it happen. And because of that, we're up to
our necks in a global firestorm of hate and civil war and over-extension and
tactical weakness.
Any attempt to lay all of this at the feet of anybody other than the
current administration seems awfully wrong-headed to me. Just seems like
desperation, ideological desperation.
God help us if we find ourselves routinely torturing people in order to
preserve our way of life. God help us. That's not who I want to be. I'll
leave this country before that becomes commonplace. I won't be party to the
torture of other humans in order to preserve for ourselves cheap gas and
relative safety from those who have learned to hate us at least PARTLY
because we have been manipulating their governments, their history, their
economies and their lives for decades solely to keep a steady flow of cheap
oil.
I despise the destruction of innocent lives. Be clear on that. And I love my
country above all else. But I will not be a hypocrite, and I will not be
bullied into hard-partisan faux-patriotism. I fear we are losing our grip,
as a nation, on what it means to be an American. It is a fear that seizes my
heart like a clammy premonition of impending doom. I hope I am wrong.....
BTW, if we want to win this war on conservative terms, we need to show
everybody right now how we will deal with those who harbor non-traditional
combatants in their midsts, whether it's Lebanon or Pakistan or Syria or
Iran: we nuke them. Just the major cities. Warn folks a gew days before we
drop the hammer, give 'em time to get out.
That's how we won WWII, more or less. Anything less isn't going to work.
Anything less is the worst sort of wishy-washy hypocricy. War is hell, and
anything less than hell isn't war. End of discussion.
Over and out.
Jimmy
"Deej" <animixx@animass.net> wrote in message news:4510cf27$1@linux...
>
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> No offense taken here. My point is that we are finishing a war that was
> started by Sadaam, not Bush. It was never brought to any conclusion
be3cause
> the sanctions that were put in place to do this were circumvented and this
> was during Clinton's administration. Clinton also instituted a policy
> wherein our CIA couldn't work with anyone who had any taint of human
rights
> abuses and also did everything they could to keep the various intelligence
> service and the domestic intelligence services from sharing information.
> All
> of these things played a huge part in what happened on 9-11 and the crappy
> intelligence was what we based the decision on to go in and finish the
gulf
> war that Sadaam started. Had we accurate intelligence, I'll bet things
would
> have been handled much differently. You may not agree with this and that's
> OK. I'm not going to flog it anymore or Kim's gonna get pissed off at me
> and
> I might die.
>
> I've said my piece here. If you want to discuss this off the group it's
> animix@animas.net.
>
> Regards,
>
> Deej
>
>
> "Deej" <animix@animass.netttt> wrote:
> >
> >"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>Man.
> >>
> >>I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you,
> but
> >I
> >>don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
> >>
> >>Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
> >>
> >>I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
> >>actions.
> >>
> >>And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
> >>
> >>Guess I'm just ignernt.
> >>
> >>Jimmy
> >>
> >>
> >>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >>news:45109ebf@linux...
> >>> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result
> >of
> >>> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby
giving
> >>> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country so
> >>> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair
share
> >to
> >>> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and the
> >lack
> >>> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every
turn
> >on
> >>> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
> >>> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton
> >>would
> >>> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
> >>*international
> >>> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but he
> >>> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:45108022@linux...
> >>> > So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that
> >>right?
> >>> >
> >>> > Cuz that seems absurd to me.
> >>> >
> >>> > Just sayin'.
> >>> >
> >>> > Jimmy
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >>> > news:4510721c@linux...
> >>> > > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> >>> > > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
> >>government.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders
based
> >>> their
> >>> > > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of
> the
> >>> > Clinton
> >>> > > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any
other
> >>> reason
> >>> > > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the
> >>same
> >>> > > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy
> >>ideas
> >>> to
> >>> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
> >>> > yes.......it
> >>> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
> >>> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in
> >the
> >>> > white
> >>> > > House.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>news:451035a7@linux...
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
> >>between
> >>> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
> >>around.
> >>> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
> >>administration
> >>> > > > on a number of counts.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with
> >that
> >>> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
> >>> controlled
> >>> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at
> >>some
> >>> of
> >>> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
> >>> backwards
> >>> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
> >>government.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the
previous
> >>> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
> >>> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do
better.
> >>> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops
> >with
> >>> > > > those in charge now.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Cheers,
> >>> > > > -Jamie
> >>> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > DJ wrote:
> >>> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
> >as a
> >>> > last
> >>> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
> >>such.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service
> that
> >>> they
> >>> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to
slag
> >>and
> >>> > > blame
> >>> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they
> >vote
> >>> > > against
> >>> > > > > it.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:450f8aec@linux...
> >>> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
> >>specific
> >>> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
> >>> government.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
> >>> governments
> >>> > > was
> >>> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have
doomed
> >>> the
> >>> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the
previous
> >>> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to
follow
> >>> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and
> >>failed
> >>> > to
> >>> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
> >>Afghanistan;
> >>> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of
Afghanistan;
> >>> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
> >>failed
> >>> to
> >>> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own
> state
> >>> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
> >>> > terrorism"
> >>> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief
inspector,
> >>and
> >>> > > Bush
> >>> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff.
One
> >of
> >>> the
> >>> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
> >>> > government,
> >>> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a
position
> >>of
> >>> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
> >as
> >>a
> >>> > last
> >>> > > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as
> >>such.
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.)
Doctrine."
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Cheers,
> >>> > > > >> -Jamie
> >>> > > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> DJ wrote:
> >>> > > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> > > news:450f3862@linux...
> >>> > > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on
> >the
> >>> > nature
> >>> > > > > of
> >>> > > > >>>> the threat.
> >>> > > > >>> Agreed.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in
1999,
> >>> well
> >>> > > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> >>> > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> >>> > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> >>> > > overreacting
> >>> > > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly
minted
> >>> > > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> >>> > > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There
> >has
> >>> > > always
> >>> > > > > been
> >>> > > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be
> >>based
> >>> > on
> >>> > > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt
> >>that
> >>> > > Bush,
> >>> > > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the
> >>> > invasion
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's
> >>> before
> >>> > > they
> >>> > > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it
hard
> >>to
> >>> > > > > stomach
> >>> > > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> >>> > > intelligence
> >>> > > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush
> for
> >>the
> >>> > > > > decisions
> >>> > > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the
> >>first
> >>> > > place.
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>> Regards,
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>> Deej
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >>>> Cheers,
> >>> > > > >>>> -Jamie
> >>> > > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>> > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>> > > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
> >>> indication
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > >>> some
> >>> > > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or
> do
> >we
> >>> > blow
> >>> > > > > the
> >>> > > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> >>> > > > >>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> > > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
> >>> > > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's
> >not
> >>> > news,
> >>> > > > >>> it's
> >>> > > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest
> >>that
> >>> > > others
> >>> > > > >>> do
> >>> > > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you
> >>afraid
> >>> > as
> >>> > > > >>> well,
> >>> > > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow,
> >>raise
> >>> > > money
> >>> > > > >>> and
> >>> > > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act
> >>accordingly.
> >>> > It
> >>> > > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with
> >a
> >>> > declared
> >>> > > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise
> >>beneficial
> >>> to
> >>> > > > > have
> >>> > > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this
whole
> >>> mess.
> >>> > > How
> >>> > > > >>> do
> >>> > > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a
lead
> >>> > balloon
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than,
> >>say,
> >>> > > Iraq.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm
> >>extremist
> >>> > > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are
> >>trying
> >>> > to
> >>> > > > > get
> >>> > > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be,
and
> >>are
> >>> > > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous
group
> >>> with
> >>> > > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There
> >is
> >>> > nothing
> >>> > > > >>> holy
> >>> > > > >>>>>> about war.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>> > > > >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with
irrationality.............yet.
> >>> Al
> >>> > > > > Quaeda
> >>> > > > >>>>> just
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war
> >now
> >>> and
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > > >>>>> west
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to
> >>> convert
> >>> > to
> >>> > > > >>>>> Islam. So
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and
self
> >>> > defense?
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> > > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with
> >>irrationality
> >>> of
> >>> > > our
> >>> > > > >>>>> own.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is
back.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope.
The
> >>> bottom
> >>> > > > > line
> >>> > > > >>> is
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> that
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> > > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
> >>> Certainly
> >>> > > not
> >>> > > > >>> for
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other
Christian
> >>> > sects,
> >>> > > > >>> even
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much
harsher
> >>> > things
> >>> > > > > have
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> been
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme
fundamentalist
> >>> > > > >>> Christians.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by
> >>certain
> >>> > > > >>> extremist
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of
> both
> >>> > camps
> >>> > > > > seem
> >>> > > > >>>>> to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the
> >more
> >>> > power
> >>> > > > >>>>> hungry
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to
incite
> >>> > > religious
> >>> > > > >>> wars
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> >>> > > "secularists"
> >>> > > > >>> or
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the
> Pope.
> >>I
> >>> > > think
> >>> > > > > a
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever
> he
> >>> wants.
> >>> > > It
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in
reality,
> >>> Papal
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of
Catholics
> >>> here,
> >>> > > too.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but
> >how
> >>> deep
> >>> > > > > does
> >>> > > > >>>>> that
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it
> would
> >>> > have
> >>> > > > > been
> >>> > > > >>>>> an
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church
which
> >>> only
> >>> > > very
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo.
The
> >>> church
> >>> > > > > hung
> >>> > > > >>> on
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of
> >the
> >>> > > > > universe
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> while
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
> >>> > describes
> >>> > > > > the
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
> >>> > similarly
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the
earth
> >>is
> >>> > > only
> >>> > > > >>>>> about
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical
> >>interpretations
> >>> > and
> >>> > > > >>> clever
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
> >>> > centuries
> >>> > > > >>> ago,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to
> the
> >>> > > contrary.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all)
Christian
> >>> > churches
> >>> > > > >>> who,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
> >>> ever-mounting
> >>> > > > >>> evidence
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
> >>> > clothing,
> >>> > > > > and
> >>> > > > >>>>> who
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries
> >who
> >>> pay
> >>> > > big
> >>> > > > >>>>> bucks
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term
> >>gain.
> >>> > Who
> >>> > > > > push
> >>> > > > >>>>> to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our
> guns
> >>> > > blazing,
> >>> > > > >>> our
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically.
And
> >>who
> >>> > > > >>> sometimes
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives
> who
> >>> find
> >>> > > ways
> >>> > > > >>> to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against
Christianity.
> >>And
> >>> > in
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> spreading
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to
keep
> >>them
> >>> > in
> >>> > > > >>> power.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of
> >>reason
> >>> > and
> >>> > > > > the
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> focus
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and
> >>declare
> >>> > > > >>> victory.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>> ;^)
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
> >>> > interested.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
> >>controversial
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
> >>> University
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief
> >in
> >>a
> >>> > God
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and
> >the
> >>> law
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with
Islamic
> >>> > > belief
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own
words.
> >>> > > > > Benedict
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of
secular
> >>> > > > > humanists
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
> >>demanded
> >>> > the
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
> >>enlightened
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences
between
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis
> >of
> >>the
> >>> > > clash
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on
Terror.
> >>> His
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
> >>> alliance
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist
Right.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the
speech.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine
Emperor
> >>> > > Manuel
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was
new,
> >>and
> >>> > > there
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as
> >his
> >>> > > command
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
> >>legislature
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's
> top
> >>> > Shiite
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the
ruling
> >>> party
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and
accused
> >>> him
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks
> >on
> >>> > Islam
> >>> > > > > and
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of
> >rage
> >>> > that
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like
those
> >>> that
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
> >>> > Muhammad."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for
the
> >>> Pope's
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's
600-year-old
> >>> point.
> >>> > > > > The
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated
attempt
> >to
> >>> > force
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam
> >>need
> >>> > not
> >>> > > be
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason,
> >>it's
> >>> > only
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is
> >so
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If
man
> >is
> >>> > > created
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not
> >>bound
> >>> by
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the
part
> >>of
> >>> > some
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
> >>> > 'offense'
> >>> > > > > to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the
> >>only
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
> >>> > > > > philosophy-hence
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
> >>Western
> >>> > > "Left'
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
> >>> thought
> >>> > > > > than
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
> >>Western
> >>> > > "Left"
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing
precisely
> >>> what
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the
> >>chief
> >>> > > cleric
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
> >>> mosque,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which
forces
> >>the
> >>> > Pope
> >>> > > > > to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
> >>reason.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the
> >Pope
> >>> > was,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York
Times,editorializes,
> >>> > "Pope
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false.
> >>The
> >>> > Pope
> >>> > > 's
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by
> >>reason
> >>> is
> >>> > > not
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What
> >>> Muslims
> >>> > > and
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to
> >>enter
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How
> >dare
> >>> he
> >>> > > not
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the
> >>so-called
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims
"apologize"
> >>> for
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to
the
> >>> point
> >>> > is
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the
> world
> >>> > over
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war
> >-
> >>> > jihad -
> >>> > > is
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence."
>
> >In
> >>> > saying
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists
> >are
> >>> > waging
> >>> > > a
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension
> >>against
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join
this
> >>> > jihad.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
> >>> > 'spiritual
> >>> > > '
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise.
>
> >The
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is
merely
> >>the
> >>> > flip
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more
clear
> >>> than
> >>> > in
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November
> >the
> >>> > > > > Islamists
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons
> >and
> >>> > > demand
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place
raging
> >>> mobs
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of
forcing
> >>> the
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
> >>> > > secularist
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> >>> > > > > editorializes:
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology."
>
> >The
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like
the
> >>> > > Islamists,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to
power.
> >>> > While
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists
represent
> >>> their
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God.
They
> >>are
> >>> > > > > united
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger'
> >>from
> >>> > the
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's
> >>characterization
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound
> up
> >>with
> >>> > any
> >>> > > > > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The
Islamic)
> >>> God
> >>> > > is
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen
> >as
> >>an
> >>> > > > > insult.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
> >>> > description
> >>> > > > > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading
modern
> >>> French
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of
> >>> > Professor
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the
pope's
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject
> (who)
> >>> > then
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
> >>> considers
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
> >>> > 'conscience
> >>> > > '
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without
God,
> >>> there
> >>> > > can
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In
> this
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create
> a
> >>> > community
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and
> >>reason
> >>> > > apart.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West.
They
> >>> > believe
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
> >>> > globalization
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout
> the
> >>> > world,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
> >>> > secularist
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke
> >>their
> >>> > > pact
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after
> >the
> >>> > > collapse
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear
> >is
> >>> > having
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
> >>Byzantine
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with
> logos
> >>> > (word
> >>> > > > > or
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is
> >to
> >>> this
> >>> > > > > great
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
> >>> > partners
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
> >>disaster.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72806 is a reply to message #72799] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 19:27 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jimmy,
did it ever occur to you that someone was actually paying some attention to
Iraq and what was happening there, even when Clinton wasn't? Considering the
intelligence assessments (or lack thereof) I would think that any potential
leader of this country might be thinking ahead. "W" would have a special
interest I'll grant you, since his father's administration was the one who
organized the war and was instrumental in putting together the sanctions
that were ignored by the world. How that is portrayed by 36354567645 million
pundits with an agenda (including you and me, of course) is a matter of
speculation.
Deej
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4511e40a@linux...
> Sorry, brother. There's too much evidence that Bush and Co. were really,
> really, really eager to invade Iraq, even in the face of well-documented
> evidence that they were barking up the wrong tree, even that they knew
they
> were barking up the wrong tree. It's a matter of record that the CIA was
> skeptical about the "slam-dunk" theory of WMDs, as espoused unequivocally
by
> Cheney over and over again before the invasion.
>
> There are documents dating from the mid-'90s showing key Bush
administration
> officials and advisors making concrete, detailed plans to make an example
of
> Iraq by invading it and "nation building" it into an ally. That certainly
> had nothing to do with Clinton's administration.The general consensus on
the
> part of most reasonable folk is that Iraq was a dead-center target for
Bush,
> et al, looooong before he got elected.
>
> Frankly, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the invasion occurred. I
> said to myself, maybe they're right. Maybe we win, things shift in the
> Mid-East, we're all happier. Didn't work out that way.
>
> We didn't have to do it. Fact is, certain now-powerful neo-cons had been
> fantasizing about it for a decade or more when Bush took office, and they
> seized the opportunity and made it happen. And because of that, we're up
to
> our necks in a global firestorm of hate and civil war and over-extension
and
> tactical weakness.
>
> Any attempt to lay all of this at the feet of anybody other than the
> current administration seems awfully wrong-headed to me. Just seems like
> desperation, ideological desperation.
>
> God help us if we find ourselves routinely torturing people in order to
> preserve our way of life. God help us. That's not who I want to be. I'll
> leave this country before that becomes commonplace. I won't be party to
the
> torture of other humans in order to preserve for ourselves cheap gas and
> relative safety from those who have learned to hate us at least PARTLY
> because we have been manipulating their governments, their history, their
> economies and their lives for decades solely to keep a steady flow of
cheap
> oil.
>
> I despise the destruction of innocent lives. Be clear on that. And I love
my
> country above all else. But I will not be a hypocrite, and I will not be
> bullied into hard-partisan faux-patriotism. I fear we are losing our grip,
> as a nation, on what it means to be an American. It is a fear that seizes
my
> heart like a clammy premonition of impending doom. I hope I am wrong.....
>
> BTW, if we want to win this war on conservative terms, we need to show
> everybody right now how we will deal with those who harbor non-traditional
> combatants in their midsts, whether it's Lebanon or Pakistan or Syria or
> Iran: we nuke them. Just the major cities. Warn folks a gew days before we
> drop the hammer, give 'em time to get out.
>
> That's how we won WWII, more or less. Anything less isn't going to work.
> Anything less is the worst sort of wishy-washy hypocricy. War is hell, and
> anything less than hell isn't war. End of discussion.
>
> Over and out.
>
> Jimmy
>
>
> "Deej" <animixx@animass.net> wrote in message news:4510cf27$1@linux...
> >
> > Hi Jimmy,
> >
> > No offense taken here. My point is that we are finishing a war that was
> > started by Sadaam, not Bush. It was never brought to any conclusion
> be3cause
> > the sanctions that were put in place to do this were circumvented and
this
> > was during Clinton's administration. Clinton also instituted a policy
> > wherein our CIA couldn't work with anyone who had any taint of human
> rights
> > abuses and also did everything they could to keep the various
intelligence
> > service and the domestic intelligence services from sharing information.
> > All
> > of these things played a huge part in what happened on 9-11 and the
crappy
> > intelligence was what we based the decision on to go in and finish the
> gulf
> > war that Sadaam started. Had we accurate intelligence, I'll bet things
> would
> > have been handled much differently. You may not agree with this and
that's
> > OK. I'm not going to flog it anymore or Kim's gonna get pissed off at me
> > and
> > I might die.
> >
> > I've said my piece here. If you want to discuss this off the group it's
> > animix@animas.net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Deej
> >
> >
> > "Deej" <animix@animass.netttt> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>Man.
> > >>
> > >>I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you,
> > but
> > >I
> > >>don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
> > >>
> > >>Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
> > >>
> > >>I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
> > >>actions.
> > >>
> > >>And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
> > >>
> > >>Guess I'm just ignernt.
> > >>
> > >>Jimmy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:45109ebf@linux...
> > >>> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a
result
> > >of
> > >>> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby
> giving
> > >>> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country
so
> > >>> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair
> share
> > >to
> > >>> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and
the
> > >lack
> > >>> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every
> turn
> > >on
> > >>> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
> > >>> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if
Clinton
> > >>would
> > >>> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
> > >>*international
> > >>> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but
he
> > >>> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >>> news:45108022@linux...
> > >>> > So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that
> > >>right?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Cuz that seems absurd to me.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Just sayin'.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Jimmy
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > >>> > news:4510721c@linux...
> > >>> > > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> > >>> > > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
> > >>government.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders
> based
> > >>> their
> > >>> > > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of
> > the
> > >>> > Clinton
> > >>> > > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any
> other
> > >>> reason
> > >>> > > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect
the
> > >>same
> > >>> > > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn
policy
> > >>ideas
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
> > >>> > yes.......it
> > >>> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the
national
> > >>> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton
in
> > >the
> > >>> > white
> > >>> > > House.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:451035a7@linux...
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
> > >>between
> > >>> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
> > >>around.
> > >>> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
> > >>administration
> > >>> > > > on a number of counts.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush
with
> > >that
> > >>> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
> > >>> controlled
> > >>> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame
at
> > >>some
> > >>> of
> > >>> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
> > >>> backwards
> > >>> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
> > >>government.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the
> previous
> > >>> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell
flat
> > >>> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do
> better.
> > >>> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck
stops
> > >with
> > >>> > > > those in charge now.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Cheers,
> > >>> > > > -Jamie
> > >>> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > DJ wrote:
> > >>> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on
Iraq
> > >as a
> > >>> > last
> > >>> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done
as
> > >>such.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service
> > that
> > >>> they
> > >>> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to
> slag
> > >>and
> > >>> > > blame
> > >>> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before
they
> > >vote
> > >>> > > against
> > >>> > > > > it.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > news:450f8aec@linux...
> > >>> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
> > >>specific
> > >>> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
> > >>> government.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
> > >>> governments
> > >>> > > was
> > >>> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have
> doomed
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in
progress.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the
> previous
> > >>> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to
> follow
> > >>> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11
and
> > >>failed
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
> > >>Afghanistan;
> > >>> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of
> Afghanistan;
> > >>> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
> > >>failed
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own
> > state
> > >>> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
> > >>> > terrorism"
> > >>> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief
> inspector,
> > >>and
> > >>> > > Bush
> > >>> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff.
> One
> > >of
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
> > >>> > government,
> > >>> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a
> position
> > >>of
> > >>> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on
Iraq
> > >as
> > >>a
> > >>> > last
> > >>> > > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done
as
> > >>such.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.)
> Doctrine."
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> Cheers,
> > >>> > > > >> -Jamie
> > >>> > > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> DJ wrote:
> > >>> > > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > > news:450f3862@linux...
> > >>> > > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend
on
> > >the
> > >>> > nature
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > >>>> the threat.
> > >>> > > > >>> Agreed.
> > >>> > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in
> 1999,
> > >>> well
> > >>> > > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
> > >>> > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> > >>> > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one
of
> > >>> > > overreacting
> > >>> > > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly
> minted
> > >>> > > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> > >>> > > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy.
There
> > >has
> > >>> > > always
> > >>> > > > > been
> > >>> > > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to
be
> > >>based
> > >>> > on
> > >>> > > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I
doubt
> > >>that
> > >>> > > Bush,
> > >>> > > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized
the
> > >>> > invasion
> > >>> > > of
> > >>> > > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the
WMD's
> > >>> before
> > >>> > > they
> > >>> > > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it
> hard
> > >>to
> > >>> > > > > stomach
> > >>> > > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> > >>> > > intelligence
> > >>> > > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush
> > for
> > >>the
> > >>> > > > > decisions
> > >>> > > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in
the
> > >>first
> > >>> > > place.
> > >>> > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > >>> Regards,
> > >>> > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > >>> Deej
> > >>> > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>> > > > >>>> -Jamie
> > >>> > > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>> DJ wrote:
> > >>> > > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
> > >>> indication
> > >>> > > of
> > >>> > > > >>> some
> > >>> > > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or
> > do
> > >we
> > >>> > blow
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> > >>> > > > >>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum.
That's
> > >not
> > >>> > news,
> > >>> > > > >>> it's
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and
suggest
> > >>that
> > >>> > > others
> > >>> > > > >>> do
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes
you
> > >>afraid
> > >>> > as
> > >>> > > > >>> well,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them
grow,
> > >>raise
> > >>> > > money
> > >>> > > > >>> and
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act
> > >>accordingly.
> > >>> > It
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here
with
> > >a
> > >>> > declared
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise
> > >>beneficial
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > > > have
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this
> whole
> > >>> mess.
> > >>> > > How
> > >>> > > > >>> do
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a
> lead
> > >>> > balloon
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian
than,
> > >>say,
> > >>> > > Iraq.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm
> > >>extremist
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who
are
> > >>trying
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > > get
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be,
> and
> > >>are
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous
> group
> > >>> with
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational.
There
> > >is
> > >>> > nothing
> > >>> > > > >>> holy
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> about war.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with
> irrationality.............yet.
> > >>> Al
> > >>> > > > > Quaeda
> > >>> > > > >>>>> just
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on
war
> > >now
> > >>> and
> > >>> > > the
> > >>> > > > >>>>> west
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is
to
> > >>> convert
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > >>>>> Islam. So
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and
> self
> > >>> > defense?
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with
> > >>irrationality
> > >>> of
> > >>> > > our
> > >>> > > > >>>>> own.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is
> back.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope.
> The
> > >>> bottom
> > >>> > > > > line
> > >>> > > > >>> is
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
> > >>> Certainly
> > >>> > > not
> > >>> > > > >>> for
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other
> Christian
> > >>> > sects,
> > >>> > > > >>> even
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much
> harsher
> > >>> > things
> > >>> > > > > have
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> been
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme
> fundamentalist
> > >>> > > > >>> Christians.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by
> > >>certain
> > >>> > > > >>> extremist
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of
> > both
> > >>> > camps
> > >>> > > > > seem
> > >>> > > > >>>>> to
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of
the
> > >more
> > >>> > power
> > >>> > > > >>>>> hungry
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to
> incite
> > >>> > > religious
> > >>> > > > >>> wars
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or
> > >>> > > "secularists"
> > >>> > > > >>> or
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the
> > Pope.
> > >>I
> > >>> > > think
> > >>> > > > > a
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever
> > he
> > >>> wants.
> > >>> > > It
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> doesn't
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in
> reality,
> > >>> Papal
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of
> Catholics
> > >>> here,
> > >>> > > too.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places,
but
> > >how
> > >>> deep
> > >>> > > > > does
> > >>> > > > >>>>> that
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it
> > would
> > >>> > have
> > >>> > > > > been
> > >>> > > > >>>>> an
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church
> which
> > >>> only
> > >>> > > very
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo.
> The
> > >>> church
> > >>> > > > > hung
> > >>> > > > >>> on
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view
of
> > >the
> > >>> > > > > universe
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> while
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus,
which
> > >>> > describes
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who,
feeling
> > >>> > similarly
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the
> earth
> > >>is
> > >>> > > only
> > >>> > > > >>>>> about
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical
> > >>interpretations
> > >>> > and
> > >>> > > > >>> clever
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop
several
> > >>> > centuries
> > >>> > > > >>> ago,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to
> > the
> > >>> > > contrary.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all)
> Christian
> > >>> > churches
> > >>> > > > >>> who,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
> > >>> ever-mounting
> > >>> > > > >>> evidence
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in
psuedo-scientific
> > >>> > clothing,
> > >>> > > > > and
> > >>> > > > >>>>> who
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry
industries
> > >who
> > >>> pay
> > >>> > > big
> > >>> > > > >>>>> bucks
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short
term
> > >>gain.
> > >>> > Who
> > >>> > > > > push
> > >>> > > > >>>>> to
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our
> > guns
> > >>> > > blazing,
> > >>> > > > >>> our
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically.
> And
> > >>who
> > >>> > > > >>> sometimes
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives
> > who
> > >>> find
> > >>> > > ways
> > >>> > > > >>> to
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against
> Christianity.
> > >>And
> > >>> > in
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> spreading
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to
> keep
> > >>them
> > >>> > in
> > >>> > > > >>> power.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of
> > >>reason
> > >>> > and
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> focus
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and
> > >>declare
> > >>> > > > >>> victory.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>> ;^)
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
> > >>> > interested.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
> > >>controversial
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
> > >>> University
> > >>> > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian
belief
> > >in
> > >>a
> > >>> > God
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth
and
> > >the
> > >>> law
> > >>> > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with
> Islamic
> > >>> > > belief
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own
> words.
> > >>> > > > > Benedict
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of
> secular
> > >>> > > > > humanists
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
> > >>demanded
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
> > >>enlightened
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences
> between
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the
basis
> > >of
> > >>the
> > >>> > > clash
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on
> Terror.
> > >>> His
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
> > >>> alliance
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist
> Right.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the
> speech.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine
> Emperor
> > >>> > > Manuel
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was
> new,
> > >>and
> > >>> > > there
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such
as
> > >his
> > >>> > > command
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
> > >>legislature
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's
> > top
> > >>> > Shiite
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the
> ruling
> > >>> party
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and
> accused
> > >>> him
> > >>> > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's
remarks
> > >on
> > >>> > Islam
> > >>> > > > > and
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent
of
> > >rage
> > >>> > that
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like
> those
> > >>> that
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
> > >>> > Muhammad."
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for
> the
> > >>> Pope's
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's
> 600-year-old
> > >>> point.
> > >>> > > > > The
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated
> attempt
> > >to
> > >>> > force
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since
Islam
> > >>need
> > >>> > not
> > >>> > > be
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by
reason,
> > >>it's
> > >>> > only
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who
is
> > >so
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If
> man
> > >is
> > >>> > > created
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is
not
> > >>bound
> > >>> by
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the
> part
> > >>of
> > >>> > some
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to
any
> > >>> > 'offense'
> > >>> > > > > to
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting
the
> > >>only
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
> > >>> > > > > philosophy-hence
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
> > >>Western
> > >>> > > "Left'
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche
existentialist
> > >>> thought
> > >>> > > > > than
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
> > >>Western
> > >>> > > "Left"
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing
> precisely
> > >>> what
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari,
the
> > >>chief
> > >>> > > cleric
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's
largest
> > >>> mosque,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which
> forces
> > >>the
> > >>> > Pope
> > >>> > > > > to
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
> > >>reason.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out
the
> > >Pope
> > >>> > was,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York
> Times,editorializes,
> > >>> > "Pope
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is
false.
> > >>The
> > >>> > Pope
> > >>> > > 's
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by
> > >>reason
> > >>> is
> > >>> > > not
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith.
What
> > >>> Muslims
> > >>> > > and
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose
to
> > >>enter
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity.
How
> > >dare
> > >>> he
> > >>> > > not
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the
> > >>so-called
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims
> "apologize"
> > >>> for
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to
> the
> > >>> point
> > >>> > is
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the
> > world
> > >>> > over
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy
war
> > >-
> > >>> > jihad -
> > >>> > > is
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence."
> >
> > >In
> > >>> > saying
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the
Islamists
> > >are
> > >>> > waging
> > >>> > > a
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension
> > >>against
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join
> this
> > >>> > jihad.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join
your
> > >>> > 'spiritual
> > >>> > > '
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise.
> >
> > >The
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is
> merely
> > >>the
> > >>> > flip
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more
> clear
> > >>> than
> > >>> > in
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in
November
> > >the
> > >>> > > > > Islamists
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican
spokespersons
> > >and
> > >>> > > demand
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place
> raging
> > >>> mobs
> > >>> > > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of
> forcing
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by
the
> > >>> > > secularist
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> > >>> > > > > editorializes:
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology."
> >
> > >The
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like
> the
> > >>> > > Islamists,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to
> power.
> > >>> > While
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists
> represent
> > >>> their
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God.
> They
> > >>are
> > >>> > > > > united
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged
"anger'
> > >>from
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's
> > >>characterization
> > >>> > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound
> > up
> > >>with
> > >>> > any
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The
> Islamic)
> > >>> God
> > >>> > > is
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not
seen
> > >as
> > >>an
> > >>> > > > > insult.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
> > >>> > description
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading
> modern
> > >>> French
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings
of
> > >>> > Professor
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the
> pope's
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject
> > (who)
> > >>> > then
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
> > >>> considers
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
> > >>> > 'conscience
> > >>> > > '
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without
> God,
> > >>> there
> > >>> > > can
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In
> > this
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create
> > a
> > >>> > community
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal
matter."
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and
> > >>reason
> > >>> > > apart.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West.
> They
> > >>> > believe
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
> > >>> > globalization
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout
> > the
> > >>> > world,
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist
and
> > >>> > secularist
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists
broke
> > >>their
> > >>> > > pact
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941
after
> > >the
> > >>> > > collapse
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both
fear
> > >is
> > >>> > having
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
> > >>Byzantine
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with
> > logos
> > >>> > (word
> > >>> > > > > or
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It
is
> > >to
> > >>> this
> > >>> > > > > great
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite
our
> > >>> > partners
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
> > >>disaster.
> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72825 is a reply to message #72799] |
Thu, 21 September 2006 06:11 |
Pauln[1]
Messages: 19
Registered: February 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Jimmy,
Good post. I think this pretty much states where I am on the subject as well.
Thanks for posting it.
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Sorry, brother. There's too much evidence that Bush and Co. were really,
>really, really eager to invade Iraq, even in the face of well-documented
>evidence that they were barking up the wrong tree, even that they knew they
>were barking up the wrong tree. It's a matter of record that the CIA was
>skeptical about the "slam-dunk" theory of WMDs, as espoused unequivocally
by
>Cheney over and over again before the invasion.
>
>There are documents dating from the mid-'90s showing key Bush administration
>officials and advisors making concrete, detailed plans to make an example
of
>Iraq by invading it and "nation building" it into an ally. That certainly
>had nothing to do with Clinton's administration.The general consensus on
the
>part of most reasonable folk is that Iraq was a dead-center target for Bush,
>et al, looooong before he got elected.
>
>Frankly, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the invasion occurred.
I
>said to myself, maybe they're right. Maybe we win, things shift in the
>Mid-East, we're all happier. Didn't work out that way.
>
>We didn't have to do it. Fact is, certain now-powerful neo-cons had been
>fantasizing about it for a decade or more when Bush took office, and they
>seized the opportunity and made it happen. And because of that, we're up
to
>our necks in a global firestorm of hate and civil war and over-extension
and
>tactical weakness.
>
> Any attempt to lay all of this at the feet of anybody other than the
>current administration seems awfully wrong-headed to me. Just seems like
>desperation, ideological desperation.
>
>God help us if we find ourselves routinely torturing people in order to
>preserve our way of life. God help us. That's not who I want to be. I'll
>leave this country before that becomes commonplace. I won't be party to
the
>torture of other humans in order to preserve for ourselves cheap gas and
>relative safety from those who have learned to hate us at least PARTLY
>because we have been manipulating their governments, their history, their
>economies and their lives for decades solely to keep a steady flow of cheap
>oil.
>
>I despise the destruction of innocent lives. Be clear on that. And I love
my
>country above all else. But I will not be a hypocrite, and I will not be
>bullied into hard-partisan faux-patriotism. I fear we are losing our grip,
>as a nation, on what it means to be an American. It is a fear that seizes
my
>heart like a clammy premonition of impending doom. I hope I am wrong.....
>
>BTW, if we want to win this war on conservative terms, we need to show
>everybody right now how we will deal with those who harbor non-traditional
>combatants in their midsts, whether it's Lebanon or Pakistan or Syria or
>Iran: we nuke them. Just the major cities. Warn folks a gew days before
we
>drop the hammer, give 'em time to get out.
>
>That's how we won WWII, more or less. Anything less isn't going to work.
>Anything less is the worst sort of wishy-washy hypocricy. War is hell, and
>anything less than hell isn't war. End of discussion.
>
>Over and out.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
>"Deej" <animixx@animass.net> wrote in message news:4510cf27$1@linux...
>>
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> No offense taken here. My point is that we are finishing a war that was
>> started by Sadaam, not Bush. It was never brought to any conclusion
>be3cause
>> the sanctions that were put in place to do this were circumvented and
this
>> was during Clinton's administration. Clinton also instituted a policy
>> wherein our CIA couldn't work with anyone who had any taint of human
>rights
>> abuses and also did everything they could to keep the various intelligence
>> service and the domestic intelligence services from sharing information.
>> All
>> of these things played a huge part in what happened on 9-11 and the crappy
>> intelligence was what we based the decision on to go in and finish the
>gulf
>> war that Sadaam started. Had we accurate intelligence, I'll bet things
>would
>> have been handled much differently. You may not agree with this and that's
>> OK. I'm not going to flog it anymore or Kim's gonna get pissed off at
me
>> and
>> I might die.
>>
>> I've said my piece here. If you want to discuss this off the group it's
>> animix@animas.net.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Deej
>>
>>
>> "Deej" <animix@animass.netttt> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>Man.
>> >>
>> >>I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you,
>> but
>> >I
>> >>don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
>> >>
>> >>Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
>> >>
>> >>I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
>> >>actions.
>> >>
>> >>And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
>> >>
>> >>Guess I'm just ignernt.
>> >>
>> >>Jimmy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:45109ebf@linux...
>> >>> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result
>> >of
>> >>> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby
>giving
>> >>> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country
so
>> >>> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair
>share
>> >to
>> >>> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and
the
>> >lack
>> >>> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every
>turn
>> >on
>> >>> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
>> >>> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton
>> >>would
>> >>> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
>> >>*international
>> >>> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but
he
>> >>> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:45108022@linux...
>> >>> > So...you're blaming the situation in Iraq on Bill Clinton? Is that
>> >>right?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cuz that seems absurd to me.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Just sayin'.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Jimmy
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> >>> > news:4510721c@linux...
>> >>> > > >But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>> >>> > > >in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
>> >>government.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders
>based
>> >>> their
>> >>> > > decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies
of
>> the
>> >>> > Clinton
>> >>> > > administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any
>other
>> >>> reason
>> >>> > > than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect
the
>> >>same
>> >>> > > misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy
>> >>ideas
>> >>> to
>> >>> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
>> >>> > yes.......it
>> >>> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
>> >>> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton
in
>> >the
>> >>> > white
>> >>> > > House.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:451035a7@linux...
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
>> >>between
>> >>> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
>> >>around.
>> >>> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
>> >>administration
>> >>> > > > on a number of counts.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with
>> >that
>> >>> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
>> >>> controlled
>> >>> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame
at
>> >>some
>> >>> of
>> >>> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
>> >>> backwards
>> >>> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
>> >>government.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the
>previous
>> >>> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell
flat
>> >>> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do
>better.
>> >>> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops
>> >with
>> >>> > > > those in charge now.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Cheers,
>> >>> > > > -Jamie
>> >>> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > DJ wrote:
>> >>> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq
>> >as a
>> >>> > last
>> >>> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done
as
>> >>such.
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service
>> that
>> >>> they
>> >>> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to
>slag
>> >>and
>> >>> > > blame
>> >>> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they
>> >vote
>> >>> > > against
>> >>> > > > > it.
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > news:450f8aec@linux...
>> >>> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
>> >>specific
>> >>> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
>> >>> government.
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
>> >>> governments
>> >>> > > was
>> >>> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have
>doomed
>> >>> the
>> >>> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the
>previous
>> >>> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to
>follow
>> >>> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11
and
>> >>failed
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
>> >>Afghanistan;
>> >>> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of
>Afghanistan;
>> >>> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
>> >>failed
>> >>> to
>> >>> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own
>> state
>> >>> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war
on
>> >>> > terrorism"
>> >>> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief
>inspector,
>> >>and
>> >>> > > Bush
>> >>> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff.
>One
>> >of
>> >>> the
>> >>> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
>> >>> > government,
>> >>> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a
>position
>> >>of
>> >>> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on
Iraq
>> >as
>> >>a
>> >>> > last
>> >>> > > > >> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done
as
>> >>such.
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.)
>Doctrine."
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> Cheers,
>> >>> > > > >> -Jamie
>> >>> > > > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >>
>> >>> > > > >> DJ wrote:
>> >>> > > > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > > news:450f3862@linux...
>> >>> > > > >>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend
on
>> >the
>> >>> > nature
>> >>> > > > > of
>> >>> > > > >>>> the threat.
>> >>> > > > >>> Agreed.
>> >>> > > > >>>
>> >>> > > > >>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in
>1999,
>> >>> well
>> >>> > > > >>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>> >>> > > > >>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>> >>> > > > >>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one
of
>> >>> > > overreacting
>> >>> > > > >>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly
>minted
>> >>> > > > >>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>> >>> > > > >>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There
>> >has
>> >>> > > always
>> >>> > > > > been
>> >>> > > > >>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to
be
>> >>based
>> >>> > on
>> >>> > > > >>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt
>> >>that
>> >>> > > Bush,
>> >>> > > > >>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized
the
>> >>> > invasion
>> >>> > > of
>> >>> > > > >>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's
>> >>> before
>> >>> > > they
>> >>> > > > >>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it
>hard
>> >>to
>> >>> > > > > stomach
>> >>> > > > >>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
>> >>> > > intelligence
>> >>> > > > >>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush
>> for
>> >>the
>> >>> > > > > decisions
>> >>> > > > >>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in
the
>> >>first
>> >>> > > place.
>> >>> > > > >>>
>> >>> > > > >>> Regards,
>> >>> > > > >>>
>> >>> > > > >>> Deej
>> >>> > > > >>>
>> >>> > > > >>>
>> >>> > > > >>>> Cheers,
>> >>> > > > >>>> -Jamie
>> >>> > > > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>> > > > >>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>> DJ wrote:
>> >>> > > > >>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is
>> >>> indication
>> >>> > > of
>> >>> > > > >>> some
>> >>> > > > >>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times
or
>> do
>> >we
>> >>> > blow
>> >>> > > > > the
>> >>> > > > >>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>> >>> > > > >>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > > > > news:450f0b12@linux...
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's
>> >not
>> >>> > news,
>> >>> > > > >>> it's
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest
>> >>that
>> >>> > > others
>> >>> > > > >>> do
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes
you
>> >>afraid
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > > > >>> well,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow,
>> >>raise
>> >>> > > money
>> >>> > > > >>> and
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act
>> >>accordingly.
>> >>> > It
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with
>> >a
>> >>> > declared
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise
>> >>beneficial
>> >>> to
>> >>> > > > > have
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this
>whole
>> >>> mess.
>> >>> > > How
>> >>> > > > >>> do
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a
>lead
>> >>> > balloon
>> >>> > > in
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than,
>> >>say,
>> >>> > > Iraq.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm
>> >>extremist
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who
are
>> >>trying
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > > > > get
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be,
>and
>> >>are
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous
>group
>> >>> with
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There
>> >is
>> >>> > nothing
>> >>> > > > >>> holy
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> about war.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>> DJ wrote:
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with
>irrationality.............yet.
>> >>> Al
>> >>> > > > > Quaeda
>> >>> > > > >>>>> just
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on
war
>> >now
>> >>> and
>> >>> > > the
>> >>> > > > >>>>> west
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is
to
>> >>> convert
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > > > >>>>> Islam. So
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and
>self
>> >>> > defense?
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > > > >>> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with
>> >>irrationality
>> >>> of
>> >>> > > our
>> >>> > > > >>>>> own.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is
>back.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope.
>The
>> >>> bottom
>> >>> > > > > line
>> >>> > > > >>> is
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> that
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > > > >>>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity.
>> >>> Certainly
>> >>> > > not
>> >>> > > > >>> for
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other
>Christian
>> >>> > sects,
>> >>> > > > >>> even
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much
>harsher
>> >>> > things
>> >>> > > > > have
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> been
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme
>fundamentalist
>> >>> > > > >>> Christians.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said
by
>> >>certain
>> >>> > > > >>> extremist
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist
of
>> both
>> >>> > camps
>> >>> > > > > seem
>> >>> > > > >>>>> to
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of
the
>> >more
>> >>> > power
>> >>> > > > >>>>> hungry
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to
>incite
>> >>> > > religious
>> >>> > > > >>> wars
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left"
or
>> >>> > > "secularists"
>> >>> > > > >>> or
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the
>> Pope.
>> >>I
>> >>> > > think
>> >>> > > > > a
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever
>> he
>> >>> wants.
>> >>> > > It
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> doesn't
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in
>reality,
>> >>> Papal
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of
>Catholics
>> >>> here,
>> >>> > > too.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places,
but
>> >how
>> >>> deep
>> >>> > > > > does
>> >>> > > > >>>>> that
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA,
it
>> would
>> >>> > have
>> >>> > > > > been
>> >>> > > > >>>>> an
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church
>which
>> >>> only
>> >>> > > very
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo.
>The
>> >>> church
>> >>> > > > > hung
>> >>> > > > >>> on
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view
of
>> >the
>> >>> > > > > universe
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> while
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which
>> >>> > describes
>> >>> > > > > the
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling
>> >>> > similarly
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the
>earth
>> >>is
>> >>> > > only
>> >>> > > > >>>>> about
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical
>> >>interpretations
>> >>> > and
>> >>> > > > >>> clever
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several
>> >>> > centuries
>> >>> > > > >>> ago,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> and
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence
to
>> the
>> >>> > > contrary.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all)
>Christian
>> >>> > churches
>> >>> > > > >>> who,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and
>> >>> ever-mounting
>> >>> > > > >>> evidence
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific
>> >>> > clothing,
>> >>> > > > > and
>> >>> > > > >>>>> who
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries
>> >who
>> >>> pay
>> >>> > > big
>> >>> > > > >>>>> bucks
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term
>> >>gain.
>> >>> > Who
>> >>> > > > > push
>> >>> > > > >>>>> to
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our
>> guns
>> >>> > > blazing,
>> >>> > > > >>> our
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically.
>And
>> >>who
>> >>> > > > >>> sometimes
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives
>> who
>> >>> find
>> >>> > > ways
>> >>> > > > >>> to
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against
>Christianity.
>> >>And
>> >>> > in
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> spreading
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to
>keep
>> >>them
>> >>> > in
>> >>> > > > >>> power.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial
of
>> >>reason
>> >>> > and
>> >>> > > > > the
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> focus
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and
>> >>declare
>> >>> > > > >>> victory.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> ;^)
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are
>> >>> > interested.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
>> >>controversial
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
>> >>> University
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief
>> >in
>> >>a
>> >>> > God
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth
and
>> >the
>> >>> law
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with
>Islamic
>> >>> > > belief
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own
>words.
>> >>> > > > > Benedict
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of
>secular
>> >>> > > > > humanists
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
>> >>demanded
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
>> >>enlightened
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences
>between
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis
>> >of
>> >>the
>> >>> > > clash
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on
>Terror.
>> >>> His
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
>> >>> alliance
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist
>Right.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the
>speech.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine
>Emperor
>> >>> > > Manuel
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was
>new,
>> >>and
>> >>> > > there
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such
as
>> >his
>> >>> > > command
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
>> >>legislature
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's
>> top
>> >>> > Shiite
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the
>ruling
>> >>> party
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and
>accused
>> >>> him
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks
>> >on
>> >>> > Islam
>> >>> > > > > and
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent
of
>> >rage
>> >>> > that
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like
>those
>> >>> that
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
>> >>> > Muhammad."
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for
>the
>> >>> Pope's
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's
>600-year-old
>> >>> point.
>> >>> > > > > The
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated
>attempt
>> >to
>> >>> > force
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam
>> >>need
>> >>> > not
>> >>> > > be
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason,
>> >>it's
>> >>> > only
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who
is
>> >so
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If
>man
>> >is
>> >>> > > created
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is
not
>> >>bound
>> >>> by
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the
>part
>> >>of
>> >>> > some
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to
any
>> >>> > 'offense'
>> >>> > > > > to
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting
the
>> >>only
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
>> >>> > > > > philosophy-hence
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
>> >>Western
>> >>> > > "Left'
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
>> >>> thought
>> >>> > > > > than
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
>> >>Western
>> >>> > > "Left"
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing
>precisely
>> >>> what
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari,
the
>> >>chief
>> >>> > > cleric
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
>> >>> mosque,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which
>forces
>> >>the
>> >>> > Pope
>> >>> > > > > to
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
>> >>reason.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out
the
>> >Pope
>> >>> > was,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York
>Times,editorializes,
>> >>> > "Pope
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false.
>> >>The
>> >>> > Pope
>> >>> > > 's
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound
by
>> >>reason
>> >>> is
>> >>> > > not
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What
>> >>> Muslims
>> >>> > > and
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose
to
>> >>enter
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity.
How
>> >dare
>> >>> he
>> >>> > > not
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the
>> >>so-called
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "insult."
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims
>"apologize"
>> >>> for
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to
>the
>> >>> point
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the
>> world
>> >>> > over
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy
war
>> >-
>> >>> > jihad -
>> >>> > > is
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence."
>>
>> >In
>> >>> > saying
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists
>> >are
>> >>> > waging
>> >>> > > a
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension
>> >>against
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join
>this
>> >>> > jihad.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your
>> >>> > 'spiritual
>> >>> > > '
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise.
>>
>> >The
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is
>merely
>> >>the
>> >>> > flip
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more
>clear
>> >>> than
>> >>> > in
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November
>> >the
>> >>> > > > > Islamists
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons
>> >and
>> >>> > > demand
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place
>raging
>> >>> mobs
>> >>> > > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of
>forcing
>> >>> the
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by
the
>> >>> > > secularist
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>> >>> > > > > editorializes:
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology."
>>
>> >The
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like
>the
>> >>> > > Islamists,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to
>power.
>> >>> > While
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists
>represent
>> >>> their
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God.
>They
>> >>are
>> >>> > > > > united
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger'
>> >>from
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's
>> >>characterization
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound
>> up
>> >>with
>> >>> > any
>> >>> > > > > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The
>Islamic)
>> >>> God
>> >>> > > is
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen
>> >as
>> >>an
>> >>> > > > > insult.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this
>> >>> > description
>> >>> > > > > of
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading
>modern
>> >>> French
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings
of
>> >>> > Professor
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the
>pope's
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject
>> (who)
>> >>> > then
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he
>> >>> considers
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
>> >>> > 'conscience
>> >>> > > '
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without
>God,
>> >>> there
>> >>> > > can
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In
>> this
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create
>> a
>> >>> > community
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and
>> >>reason
>> >>> > > apart.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West.
>They
>> >>> > believe
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As
>> >>> > globalization
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout
>> the
>> >>> > world,
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist
and
>> >>> > secularist
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke
>> >>their
>> >>> > > pact
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after
>> >the
>> >>> > > collapse
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear
>> >is
>> >>> > having
>> >>> > > to
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
>> >>Byzantine
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with
>> logos
>> >>> > (word
>> >>> > > > > or
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It
is
>> >to
>> >>> this
>> >>> > > > > great
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite
our
>> >>> > partners
>> >>> > > in
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
>> >>disaster.
>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> > > > >>>
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 22:01:01 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03060 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
