Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Liberals and the religion of peace
US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three embassy staff were killed in an attack on the Benghazi Consulate in Libya by Islamist gunmen and a safe house was also attacked. There was another attack on our embassy in Cairo and the Muslim mobs were outraged by some amateurish movie they feel insulted the Prophet Mohammed. They're blaming America for the film which makes Mohammed into a philandering fool and religious phony not apparently understanding or caring to understand that our free speech system comes with the disclaimer these are the views of others but that's over the heads of these Fred Flintstone religionists. We now have Islamists in power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia the fruits of the so-called Arab Spring. So what happened when Christians had their beliefs and Savior insulted when artist Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" came out and when another artiste Chris Ofili disparaged the Blessed Virgin Mary by putting elephant dung on her? Well...NOTHING but who do liberals see as the bigger threat to freedom though? not the Islamists of course, the Christians. Romney is blaming Obama's mixed signals in the Middle East for the latest tragic events and that's valid and is this the way they repay Obama's past outreach to the Muslim world? Seems too Obama's little post-convention bounce is gone, the sugar-high, the little orgasm and now it's back to business. Our domestic economy to put the most positive spin on it is making a glacial recovery and the world is getting more dangerous by the day, can Obama ride the tide?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both those areas are still semi-anarchic, with active extreme militias. IMO, Romney jumped the gun a bit..
ReplyDelete..heck if we blame 'foreign policy' for the deaths of 4 diplomats, what are we going to
blame 911 on? Same boat, different sails, Z-Mn.
Look, we cant control what these lunatics are going to do in Libya, or in Egypt, bur we can control what we will and should do afterwards, and the bottom line is that this pathetic excuse for a Commander in Chief is doing nothing but making excuses and will continue to hand them Millions or Billions in Aide. And that is not only a showing of weakness but pathetic in ever way imaginable.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that we have a pathetic excuse for a Commander in Chief!
Where I'm coming from on this is the majority of religious violence in the world today is being done in the name of Allah and yet the majority of liberal criticism is directed towards Christians as they pose some sort of threat as they see it. Sometimes you can read comment after comment here about what a threat to freedom Christians pose, the Dominionists for example and the same folks will go out of their way to defend the building of a mosque as close to Ground Zero as possible. There's a fundamental disconnect, cognitive dissonance. Hey BB besides apologizing too much which makes us appear weak Obama is cutting our military budget at a time when it needs to be stronger than ever. I don't get this, he cuts into the military but we should have more money than ever to cover birth control.
ReplyDeleteIf
ReplyDelete"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." is an apology, then, I guess y'all would like something
like
"The US is a totally Christian Fundamentalist nation. We retain the right to hurt the religious beliefs of others" Yep, we would
need a very strong military: double up the debt, in fact.
I see Rumsveld popped up to rattle
his sabres yet again....
I posit that I am far more threatened by Christian fundamentalists in this country who are working tirelessly to impose their beliefs on this country in the form of legislation....
ReplyDelete....than I am by Muslim terrorists.
...hence the disconnect between your view and real world events...
ReplyDeleteBB Romney's perfectly right that we need real American leadership abroad. His point was that such an apology should not have come first before a strong condemnation of the attacks, in other words Obama's first reaction is always to apologize and this shows weakness on the world stage. Day One when the tragic events transpired should have been a day of fierce criticism and condemnation by the Administration and threatening to take away Egypt's $1B in foreign aid. After this should come of course a primer on free speech and what it means and why we have it even when we don't agree with it. Lastly could come if you like criticism of the film's producers and that's more than warranted.
ReplyDeleteFreedom starts at home. My freedoms are far more threatened by religious fundamentalists here who are trying to get their religion to dictate law. They're doing it every single day. Did you not notice or does it not disturb you?
ReplyDeleteBTW your Muslim non-threat is spreading to other embassies in the region (e.g. Tunis), does that not disturb you? Also FBI just warned that there could be violence here or did you not notice?
ReplyDeleteReal leadership, Z-man? Diplomacy, even gunboat diplomacy,
ReplyDeleteis the art of the carrot and the stick. Henry Kissenger liked to
call it 'leverage'. Like he 'leveraged' us to complete
victory in Viet Nam. I would submit
that minimal carrot and maximum
stick actually creates more enemies; hence, a bigger and more
expensive stick; hence terrorists
flying into the world trade center.
It is very costly in terms of both
international relations and the concomitant huge military outlay.
If running around the globe taking names and kicking ass is 'American
Leadership', small wonder US tourists have to wear Canadian
shirts when abroad. I am far from a pacifist, but I prefer the pragmatic approach...and I would agree, if the gov't of these nascent 'arab spring' countries
cannot control, or agrees with their more religious fundamentalist factions, sure, we
should pull our embassies and aid.
...or we could recall the huge success of the Marshall Plan after
WWII, when even our worst enemies
became impressed with the stature of the US. It isn't a simple problem and is deserving of thoughtful discussion rather than
the old black/white illogic.
Carrot and stick: as we know Obama has made huge outreaches to the Muslim global community, remember the Cairo speech? Are they any nicer to us as a result of so much carrot? They're burning his image over there as we speak.
ReplyDeleteWould they be nicer to us if we had
ReplyDeletea couple hundred thousand ground troops in there?
Actually they probably would've burned Obama in effigy anyway and an American flag or two but you could probably take a crap at an embassy toilet in complete safety.
ReplyDeleteI didn't want to use this, it's a horrible example but I got a card in my back pocket and it says this. Again I found it in my wallet all dog-eared and yellow but
ReplyDeleteif Satyavati devi dasi were in a shopping mall browsing for some high-platform leopard print shoes and she suddenly found herself in the midst of a major terrorist attack would she care what theoretical threat the Dominionists pose? or perhaps she would.
A safe embassy crap. Is it worth
ReplyDeleteanother half trillion in debt? Being the self-preserving type, were I shopping in the mall for the cheapest tennyrunners and terrorists came shooting up the place, I'd yell "allahu akbar", put on the tennyrunners and sprint to the nearest embassy toilet!
..meanwhile, Saty over at the pricey shoe shop would have to pass herself off as Esmeralda Marcos...
It was probably the Dominionists' foreign policies that brought the terrorists into the mall. And please let us not forget our own Christian terrorists, who bomb abortion clinics instead of embassies. I don't see much of a difference.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Mid East and the rest of the world is engulfed in burning and storming American embassies by Islamist maniacs including Killing and sodomizing an American Ambassador
ReplyDeleteOr Dear Leader finds it more interesting and more "FUN" to party-down with Hollywood elites, Basketball thugs, Golfing,and yukking it up with celebrities like Beyonce, and other Hip-Hoppers than to hear those boring security briefings. His entire day is centered around getting himself re-elected . Why bother when he needs to do something important like dealing with American haters and Killers!..
Yup, he's pretty good at this presidential stuff . . Just ask SmackO'Daddy, he'll tell you!
And what really pisses me off is that we have 50% of our people who still believe Obama is awesome... Just read these blogs.
Who let all these stupid people into the country?
And the media writes about all this craziness about it being Romney's fault for speaking out! Is this world upside down or what!
What has become of this country? the media covers for Obama who missed the boat and screwed up royally . and these lefties are actually pointing the finger at Romney, I cant believe this.
Haven't we had enough of Obama and the despicable liberal MSM reporting to cover up and lie for Obama... Obama MUST Go
BB... You got it right when you called for less black/white thinking... It is too bad many pundits on both sides and primarily uninformed bloggers like us already know all the solutions and yet, no one calls us.
ReplyDeleteIt was only a few years back, before instant access to news that our politicians could gather the facts and game out some responses before the carping started...
No longer. Now anyone with an IPad has the right answer in three minutes and is sending it out to the world in seconds, all generally, without ever having thought about or having seen all the facts the particulars are privy to.
I don't think that we need to think about this any further, the proof is in the pudding as they say. In my opinion the facts are pretty darn obvious. Maybe you want me to lay them out for you and if that's the case, I'll be very happy too.
ReplyDeleteAs Clint Eastwood would have said, if they are incompetent and if this was a business they would be fired. And the Liberal-Progressive bloggers continue to blog about Mitt Romney’s remark? How HYPOCRITICAL and just plain STUPID can they get
Speaking of hypocritical, the Chinese Xinhua newspaper is calling Romney a hypocrite for talking down China after all he's done to outsource American jobs there.
ReplyDeleteI find that particularly rib-tickling.
Oh my, then I guess he can't count on the Chineese vote.
ReplyDeleteAnd if that's so, then he must be doing seething right.
Yes Ron, please lay out the facts that you know them... we have already learned that Romney was wrong on his facts and in fact McCain, McConnell, Boehner and many conservative writers have also cautioned that is best to wait until we have the facts before being critical.
ReplyDeleteSince you, and indeed many other bloggers seem to be saying in your comments that you know the facts, how is you are privy to them before our political and congressional leaders?
From what source are you getting these facts?
Why would someone communicate them to you before our GOP and Democratic leaders?
As BB has said, issues like these are not understood with black/white thinking...
Darth, I know you don't get this kind of complicated thinking, but let me put it in little words.
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney's lies about his relationship with China, and his views toward China, are so blatant that even the CHINESE are saying he's a liar.
That's pretty bad.
I don't know if you actually understand any of this stuff (if you do it's not evident in your replies) so just trust me, it's bad.
Since Ron hasn't answered yet, I will!
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton stood side by side with Barack Hussein Obama before the American press and the American public saying that the attack was done by a few protesters and had nothing to do with al Qaeda, and said that the attack was done by a “small and savage group” not the Government or people of Libya not the Government or people of Libya. Is she kidding or what?
Yet Libya’s President Mohammed Magarief said "It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival." Does Hillary know more than he does?
She and he both knew that was not the case.
A “small and savage group” do not go to a protester armed with automatic rifles and rocket launchers, This was a planned and ruthless attack, planned to happen on the anniversary of the infamous 9/11 terror attack. Don't let Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anyone in the main stream media anyone fool you, these attacks were highly coordinated. And this administration wants us to believe it was all due to some terrible and insulting video about the Prophet Muhammad that until last week had been seen by maybe 100 people at best. So why should we even listen to these two dimwits? We know that they are going to try to spin this thing in every other direction ether than the true one.
And by the way, the (transparent) State Department has said they will no longer answer any questions related to the Benghazi attacks!
What we have seen over the last several days will be the true test of whether or not the media does its job. Because if they choose to bury this story in the next few days so that it won’t interfere with the election and protect the Obama administration, who is already slanting the story and blaming the video for causing it, then they are even much more irrelevant then we thought. What is more ridiculous and even more hilarious are those lefties and the media who have stopped focusing on the real story and blaming Mitt Romney for his follow up remark slamming the Obama administration as he should have. And in my opinion he didn’t do so enough, he still should be at it. What are we afraid of? Telling the truth? The Obama administration is fixated on blaming Romney . Romney should be blaming the Obama administration for their lack of security! Their lack of coverage in powder keg areas such as Libya and Egypt was disastrous. Yet the media’s coverage was all about was how awful it was for Romney to be pointing it out, and basically ignored the real story.
And you Blame Bush freaks out there, how would YOU and the media have reacted had this happened under the Bush administration? You know damn well It would’ve been completely different there would have been protester on every street corner yelling, marching and demonstrating for Bush to Step Down. Yet the Manchurian Kenyan gets a Free Pass.
Actually Dude, when America was attacked on 9/11 under the Bush Admin, all of America rallied to his side, Dems included. There was no campaigning in the early days after the event, only a solemn vow, and a nation united not to find blame, that would come later, but to punish those that harmed us.
ReplyDeleteWhat is different this time? You tell me. This event was not politicized by the Dems, or Obama. That falls in Romney's lap and every Republican leader I cited, including conservative writers and columnist across our country agree.
They may not agree with Obama and how he handled it, but they agree that Romney politicized this tragedy.
As for your facts, let's wait and see what the various commissions that will be set up to deal with this find. All we have right now are interpretations of events as we seem to know them.
All the facts are not in and I dare say neither you, Ron, Z-man, me or any other regular Joe has as much info on this as our President, Congress and as of Saturday, Mitt Romney.
It is easy to cast blame in our anger. It's a lot harder to take time in this hyperspeed world of info and wait for the facts and then consider our responses.
Do you REALLY believe the the facts are not in? Give us all a break here and don't take us for the idiots you think we are.
ReplyDeleteAnd the FACT is that Romney did nothing wrong but Obama and crew want to change the direction and switch the blame.
ReplyDeleteDarth, the facts may indeed be in... but those in the know who have access to the actual facts, folks like GOP leaders McCain, McConnell and Boehner as well as other people normally critical of Obama are saying let's take this slow and that the conservative media, particularly FOX News, are wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, maybe you guys are getting your intelligence briefings from people on the ground in the middle east who are not communicating with congress or our leaders.
Saty: "And please let us not forget our own Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics instead of embassies. I don't see much of a difference."
ReplyDeleteI knew this was coming but it's a valid point. Actually though I haven't heard much about abortion clinic bombings in the recent past and believe me the msm would really cover it if it did happen. I think the graver threat today comes from radical Islamists. Here's my thing Saty and I'm applying it to you and liberals in general, why not blog about both, Christian abortion clinic bombers and radical Islamists? Real consistency would be to condemn and devote as much commentary space to both types of religious violence. I'm getting your point though, maybe you don't think Muslim terrorists are a real problem because maybe you believe 9/11 was an inside job, a conspiracy.
Romney has politicized the tragedy because the media has said he politicized the tragedy. Maybe the msm has a bigger problem with what Romney said than many average Americans (BB's cuing up the poll #'s so I had to be careful how I phrased this). Debonair's point I agree with 110%, the Benghazi attack it now appears was orchestrated by an al-Qaeda offshoot to occur on the anniversary of 9/11 and yet the msm and Obama are acting like this all has to do with that stupid video. Yes alot of the unrest that is spreading has to do with that video but not the Benghazi attack which was professionally done. Now I read the feds have interviewed the man behind the video and Obama wants to make sure the video complies with YouTubes' TOS. This part makes me the most angry because we have a 1st Amendment and Free Speech and that's what I find most offensive about this Administration. Explain to the world first why we value free speech and what it means, explain how it covers and protects offensive speech that we disagree with. Then and only then should they take to task the men behind the video and that's more than warranted as I've said but the timing here is all off. Apologizing for Western values like free speech, that's not very presidential BB and Dave.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHeres some more facts for you to question!
Late Breaking News!
Pakistanis Try to Storm U.S. Outpost; One Is Killed Sunday evening
Again Z-man, where have we apologized for western values? Where exactly can anyone show me where Obama has used the words "we are sorry" or "we apologize."
ReplyDeleteHere is what a real apology looks like...
"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," Bush said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119156,00.html#ixzz26l7w9jD7
Certainly Clinton apologized, most notably for the Lewinsky affair and then this...
President Reagan, saying "we admit a wrong," today signed into law legislation providing $20,000 payments to Japanese-Americans kept in U.S. internment camps during the early stages of World War II.
[...]
In addition to providing $20,000 in tax-free payments to each survivor, the legislation includes an official U.S. government apology for having forced some 120,000 Japanese-Americans, both citizens and resident aliens, from their homes and jobs following the Japanese attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on Dec. 7, 1941.
You see, in all of these apologies, our presidents used the words we are sorry, or we apologize.
When did President Obama ever use those words?
Mitt Romney stated that America should never ever apologize for her actions. Given that these former presidents have all done so, were they wrong to do so?
You see how slippery this gets? There's not much any president is going to do, that another president has not already done.
But it is intellectually dishonest to discredit one and not the other for the exact same behavior.
Now as for the attack, it was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. Maybe we should have had more protection on site. But maybe the host country would not allow it.
We will find out, but holding a view that only the MSM or the lamestream media is hammering Romney is just wrong and not open to the facts.
He's getting it from all sides, not for the viewpoint, but for politicizing the event right as one of our Ambassadors was killed.
How about this, which reads to me as an apology for the Iraq War:
ReplyDeleteObama: “Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Apology? I think it is...
And how about this:
Obama: “Just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year”.
And this one Obama: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government."
In a word, appeasement.
ReplyDeleteDave tell me this, why has this filmmaker been held and interviewed by federal marshals? Why has the Obama Administration asked YouTube to see if the man's video violates its Terms of Use? That's watering down the 1st Amendment, diluting free speech by harassing and trying to intimidate this man. It's taking the side of the Islamists here who don't understand our free speech system merely that the videographer needs to be held to task in some way. In a word, appeasement.
& Dave I don't know the exact tally but I'd hazard a guess that Obama has droned more terrorists than President Bush. In fact he seems to be a big fan of the drone. Yeah he's against torture but that's not even necessary because he's killing everyone. If Bush droned this many people it'd be a problem, Obama does it and it's a good foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteDarth, can you not see the difference between the examples I posted from other Presidents and Obama?
ReplyDeleteWhere does Obama use the language the others did when America apologized before?
Look closely, because it is not there.
Countries and leaders are very careful on this stuff so as not to have their words misconstrued internationally.
If your kid busted a window in a neighbors house and it was his fault, would you let him apologize without saying the words I am sorry or I apologize?
Indeed, if that neighbor kid broke your window and said in effect, yes, I broke the window when we were playing baseball, would that be an apology to you, or a statement of fact?
You tell me...
Z-man, maybe we're talking apples and oranges... I am not seeing the connection on your latest comments, but then some days I forget to take my meds and miss that stuff...
ReplyDeleteI've never said Obama took care of business on this stuff... just that he has yet to offer an apology, as many conservatives seem to believe he has.
I will say this... I have believed all along that Obama has been a neophyte in some political situations. He has failed to understand how some of his actions, or even non actions might be seen or understood by a significant section of the electorate.
Both the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers incidents are good examples of this.
And it looks as if we were unprepared for 9/11 around the world. Now maybe we weren't, but it certainly looks like it, and that is all that matters.
In a word, perception... and it is a word he seems to miss a lot when it comes to the optics of politics.
Politicians need to be aware of how what they are saying, or doing, will play across the political landscape because sometimes that play obscures the reality of their situation.
And, in today's world, they cannot wait for the questions, they must anticipate.
For example, why did Romney not have a good answer on the Swiss Bank Account issue? He knew it would come up.
Like Obama on Wright, Romney's inability to formulate an answer when first confronted has prolonged the hurt and pain for their campaigns.
Anyways, I gotta get my drugs now...
Hey, later this month I'll be enjoying some Southern Tier Cerveza in Buffalo... how far is that from you?
Let’s see if the Obama Loyola University in Chicago ( communistic) speech about the "redistribution of wealth" gets even half the Leftist controlled media coverage that Romney’s TRUE remark got and how it gets received. I’m betting it gets the same spin as the “You didn’t build that” speech did.
ReplyDeleteDude, there is no way that speech will get the same play... Obama was not insulting half of the voters in the United States...
ReplyDeleteAt most, he was insulting a small fraction of potential voters...
Also, he was not running for president at the time. Are you really saying that these two statements are equally dismissive of the same amount of people.
Are you really saying that a candidate should be held to account for statements he, or she made 10 years prior to running for president?
Because if you are, then Mitt has even more explaining to do for his views on guns, abortion, gays, health care and the list goes on...
What? Since when is telling the truth an insult? Oh I forgot that I was replying to a blame gamer
ReplyDeleteDarth, what are talking about?
ReplyDeleteYou're not part of the crowd that thinks a disabled vet who pays no income taxes is a leech on society who needs to pay more taxes are you?
You're not part of the crowd who thinks retirees who pays no income taxes because all they receive is social security are leeches and need to pay more taxes are you?
And why do you always feel a need to insult and call liberals names?
Here's how a conservative blogger explains that propensity...
"I know name-calling is very popular because it limits thought by shutting down conversation through supposedly intimidating name-calling...
I think Dave I'm most offended by how his Administration is treating Mr. Nakoula from a free speech POV. Federal agents? asking YouTube to review its TOS policy to see if his amateurish video violates it? (wink-wink). Let's not forget the US under Obama had co-sponsored a UN resolution in 2009 condemning religious hate speech as a hate crime. If that's your view fine but as President you take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and last I checked free speech was still in there.
ReplyDeleteWhy do. "I" always insult liberals? Oh pardon me, I thought (mistook) you for the Dave. Who is always cornmentng about Republicans//Conservitives on that Progressive board!!!!!
ReplyDeleteZ-man... i am assuming the man you cite is the guy who made the you tube video... I am not aware of all the facts so I'll just say this, as i understand things...
ReplyDeleteThe 'right" to free speech is not absolute. We have, as a country, and defined by the SCOTUS, decided that free speech is limited when we can reasonably determine that the exercise of that "right" could prove harmful to individuals.
It's known as screaming fire, or bomb in a crowded theater.
Could that not be an example of this?
And Darth, you're gonna be hard pressed to find a whole lot of my comments where I call people names. But like I've asked many times, show me the links...
About the most snarky I can remember being is when I regularly chide the blogger Lisa to define false facts, which she said on her blog she uses as evidence.
Dave: "The 'right' to free speech is not absolute."
ReplyDeleteNo but his thing was more than covered and btw the YouTube thing was only a trailer and not the whole enchilada but apparently everyone is upset over a damn trailer. As it stands now you'd have to amend the US Constitution and stipulate the types of speech you find harmful to individuals and the community, we can have that debate but as of this moment the video is perfectly free speech, no problema and again the Prez takes an oath.
When does 'free speech' become 'incite to riot'? The man knew what he was doing.. he knew what was going to happen and he did it with that purpose in mind, to incite riots.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me there's a distinction to be made.
Just sayin.
Policing somebody's head, that's downright totalitarian and scary. Look many people including myself have a negative view of current-day Islam unless you're down with Sharia and how they treat women and gays so seems to me to criticize Islam is perfectly fine from a 1st Amendment angle. What about anti-Christian hate speech is that enough to incite to riot? but then again Christians don't behave this way so the issue never really comes up. Free speech inciting somebody to do something...hmmm...remember when your friend the Rev. James Dobson was touting his interview with Ted Bundy and Bundy's claim that porn drove him to become a serial killer so do we ban porn? Look if porn makes you do that there's something wrong w/you to begin with, likewise if a trailer for a crappy video that insults your faith causes you to go bonkers then the problem is really YOU. Just because there's unstable people out there do we ban most speech that may off-kilter them?
ReplyDeleteHow THEY treat women and gays?
ReplyDeleteHello.
Methinks we have some disconnect from reality going on here.
Unless you think it's really, truly, all that much better here.
Shall I compile you a list? Perhaps no one's been stoned recently, but sure as shit not for lack of trying to get legislation to make it legal to do so.
But oh, that's right... we don't have a War On Women, do we?
ReplyDeleteYou see here's what I don't get about you, you should be blogging about the war on women as you see it but also blogging about Islam's war on women. Hello Disconnect!
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing: Islam is a religion.
ReplyDeleteIn America, the war on women is legislative, mostly perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians, who, can you believe this part, are mostly Republicans. But they're working to get laws passed to restrict the rights of ALL women, not just fundamentalist Christian ones.
That's not to say that I condone or support the treatment of women by various sects of Islam, because I don't. **I say sects because if you read the Quran you will find that it is REMARKABLY progressive and equitable in its treatment of women. Just like the words of Jesus, which are used, abused, whored out and manipulated into oblivion by people who claim to be his followers, Islamic teachings are similarly corrupted.
I would point out, however, that the war on women in America has many of the same goals and beliefs as those of radical Muslims. If you take out the pork restriction, they're pretty much riding on the same rails.
Interesting, both Muslims and Christians have very similar views on homosexuality but liberals most of the time come to the defense of Muslims and not Christians.
ReplyDeleteI think they've both got their fanatical sects. In America the fanatical sect has expended a lot of its effort into getting legislative power. And the fanatical sect of Christians are much larger, much better funded, much more politically powerful and much more concerned about the population at large behaving according to their wishes than any group of Muslims, especially in America.
ReplyDeleteWe're in America. 78% of the population calls itself Christian. 0.06% of the country is Muslim. Which group is a bigger threat to me?
Do I really need to ask that question?
Disconnect. Deposit 50 cents please.
ReplyDeleteWHICH group brought down the World Trade Towers???
ReplyDeleteWhich group let commercial planes fly down the path of the Hudson in the world's most watched airspace, where a pigeon can't shit in private?
ReplyDeleteLet's not go here.
Those dangerous Christians you're always concerned about, at best right now we're talking theoretical threats mostly in the form of legislation whereas the radical Islamists are perpetrating actual mayhem. Um, if we're not alive how can we deal with your threat? Pigeons...you know here in Westchester there was some controversy recently because they rounded up the geese on the Sprain Lake Golf Course and gassed them. Now I understand the case about geese striking planes but to euthanize a bunch of them because they may crap on a golf course?
ReplyDeleteI will still put forth that I am far more threatened by legislation than I am by the chance of a terrorist attack.
ReplyDeleteWhich is not to say I might not be passing by the clinic when the Christians blow it up.
Statistically far more likely than me being the victim of some radical Islamist thing.
I'm not real comfortable with the
ReplyDeleteDominionist movement myself. Ralph Reed,
the wannabee Quantrill/Torquemada
of the political evangelicals, is
a danger to anyone who disagrees with him....
Canadian geese are obnoxious, yes, and they shit green cause they eat grass. I know they've been doing stuff like rounding them up and shipping them off to parts unknown for years. I guess the 1-percenters in Scarsdale have had enough of that and have decided that the time for political correctness is over.
ReplyDeleteAnd cmon, you know as well as me that if you live in Scarsdale, you're probably in the 1 percent. Or close. Even the homeless in Scarsdale are probably better off than I am.
Grassy Sprain Golf Course is in Yonkers believe it or not. One day I was reading the local Scarsdale paper, The Scarsdale Inquirer and looked at the police blotter and you get stuff like suspicious man seen walking along street and the only thing suspicious about him is he doesn't live there. About the geese crap it somehow seems cleaner than dog stuff, I mean I'd rather step in the geese poo.
ReplyDeleteRalph Reed BB? THE Ralph Reed? He always seemed the moderate one among the evangelicals and out of them all he always seemed the most likeable and soft-spoken even if you didn't agree with him. That was back in the day, is he still around?
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna go with Homeland Security was formed after the events of 9/11 and not in response to any Christian extremism across the land. Not that they don't keep tabs on this but Bush basically gave us another gov't agency mainly in response to Islamist extremism, just sayin'
Seriously you're threatened by Ralph Reed?
ReplyDeleteI remember as a kid the geese used to terrorize our dog.
ReplyDeleteAnd we'd go out trying to chase the geese, and then you slip in the green goose shit, and geez, at that point it's just a free for all.
..threatened by Ralph Reed?..
ReplyDeleteabsolutely. After his destruction of McCain in S. Carolina in 2000
gave us 8 years of Bush, I've been
studying the fellow. peee-uu
I'm telling you, you're far more threatened by the American Family Association than you are a ragtag group of half a dozen radical Muslims.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually the whole key is that the AFA has gotten people to believe the reverse is true.
A ragtag group of half a dozen radical Muslims. If that were the case we'd have no Dept. of Homeland Security and no NYC cops spying on mosques. If you prefer to see it as some sort of phantom threat...this is absolutely fascinating to me the degree to which liberals mind you will defend a religion and its adherents despite its positions and treatment re gays and women. Utterly fascinating like multiple dimensions I once saw on a physics problem on PBS:)
ReplyDeletedespite its positions and treatment re gays and women?
ReplyDeleteWhose positions and treatments? I think, if we bring up Brian Fischer and the AFA, that you'll find that there's very little difference at all.
Let me explain something to you. It is far easier to get a populace to fear something they can see and perceive as an 'OTHER'. If the average Muslim person was Caucasian, and the average Muslim woman wasn't dressed the way she is, it would be very difficult to pick them out of a crowd, and thus it'd be a lot harder to get the populace to fear them. It's always easier to hate and fear someone who doesn't look like you, who doesn't believe the same things you do, who is DIFFERENT.
The average fundie Christian looks just like you and me, could be the guy next door. Kind of harder to be scared of them. But there they are, working like little beavers to get women's rights decimated, to keep gay folks from serving openly in the military, to keep them from getting married, to keep them from visiting their partners in the hospital, to keep them from having insurance on their dependents. They're trying to 'therapy' people out of their biological propensities and trying to legislate the control women have over their own bodies.
Exactly in what way do you think they're all that different? I assure you if they thought they could get away with stoning people they would.
Missing my point, you have every right to blog about the threat you perceive Christians to be but why not spend equal time talking about the threat radical Islam poses, how Sharia law and their treatment of gays and women in various countries is entirely inappropriate for the 21st century? Those legislative efforts by Christians you obviously disagree with but they're not out killing and beheading folk and blowing themselves up real good.
ReplyDeleteBB: "...threatened by Ralph Reed? absolutely. After his destruction of McCain in S. Carolina gave us 8 years of Bush I've been studying the fellow."
ReplyDeleteHave to admit this bothers me as well.
Well, Z-man, I disagree with his agenda..and he wields much influence. (I many even disagree with parts of your agenda...but, heck, you got about as much influence as me)
ReplyDeleteBecause in rural North Carolina the threat of a radical Muslim terrorist attack is nearly nil. On the other hand the effect that freaky fundie legislation will have on my life is tremendous.
ReplyDeleteI don't spend a lot of time worrying about contracting Ebola. I do, on the other hand, spend a considerable amount of time thinking about erlichosis and how to avoid it.
The principle is the same.
And when I try to blog about what the Republicans are doing to women's rights, people like Beth freak out and call it all a liberal leftist lie.
ReplyDeleteWhen DADT gets repealed and the Republicans spend millions trying to un-repeal it, and fight like hell to keep gay folk from doing everything everyone else is allowed to do, and I blog about that, it's a liberal leftist lie.
What is it about Sharia law that's so much horribly worse than what we have going on here? Seriously. Because they stoned a few people? Gay folk get their asses beaten to death all the time, or do I need to list names?
It's really, truly, not all that much different, Z. How come you can't bring yourself to admit it?
I was thinking maybe there are less targets for terrorists in NC. I really see no point in continuing this discussion to be honest but your thought processes are fascinating:)
ReplyDeleteYa think?
ReplyDeleteLet's analyze that for a minute. I used to live in Wilmington, remember?
Okay.
Wilmington is a state port, primary shipping point for all kinds of international merchandise. It lies on a strip of land between the Intracoastal Waterway/Atlantic and the Cape Fear River. Perhaps 50 miles to the northwest, in Fayetteville, is Fort Bragg/Pope AFB, which is one of the largest (if not the) military installations in the country. About 40 miles to the northeast, in Jacksonville, is Camp Lejeune, a positively monstrous USMC base. Additionally, right across the river (which means a couple hundred yards, give or take) is Sunny Point Nuclear. There are also large armory-type installations on the river, where if you and your little dinghy get too close the USCG *WILL* shoot and kill you.
Southeastern NC is in its entirety a magnificent strategic target.
So no, that really hasn't got a lot to do with it.
And why aren't we continuing the discussion?
ReplyDeleteAre you having that much trouble admitting that Christian fundies treat the women and gays damn near as bad as the radical Muslims do?
Lest you forget, I am one of a mere fraction of a subset of the 0.04% of the population that identifies as Hindu, in a country where 78% of the population identify as Christian.
ReplyDeleteThat makes me evil, heathen and headed to hell. Many people don't know the difference between Hindus and Muslims; both groups dress differently from the norm and have funny names, ergo, they must be exactly the same. I had to run away once from three very threatening guys in Castle Hayne, NC who thought that I had to be Muslim, because I was wearing an Indian sari.
If you don't think I find all this to be a very real worry then you're in denial about the way things really are in this country.
I'd get more understanding and tolerance from the Muslims, who comprise 0.06% of the population of this country and understand exactly what it is to be misunderstood.
Well I'm just inquiring why liberals have a soft spot in their hearts for Muslims but not the same soft spot for Christians. Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" just came back to Brooklyn but I haven't noticed the same hullabaloo as with the cheap anti-Islam vid, just sayin':)
ReplyDeleteWith the exception of Sunny Pt. Nuclear all of the sites you mention might be targets for lone wolf radical Islamists like the Ft. Hood shooter but I'd think professional al-Qaeda members would be looking for more populous generalized targets which NYC is rich in for example. Why aren't we continuing this discussion? because you'll publish 1,000 more comments instead of conceding an occasional, even minor point. It's not your style, if I said the sky is blue you'd say it's magenta. I kinda agree with Lista when she said threads with humongous numbers of comments might not get that well-read so yeah we can argue our little points about Christians and Muslims but where would it lead? It's like squeezing out a tube of toothpaste but if you prefer...
ReplyDeleteSoft spot? Remember, the crusades
ReplyDeleteended the dark ages: from the
Arabs, Europe learned about coffee,
sugar, algebra, irrigation, chess,
the zero, the compass and bathing.
(Evil King John of England was so taken with the new concept of cleanliness, that he bathed every
three weeks). After working with
roman numerals for centuries, the
Europeans were delighted to begin
a renaissance. (except for the evangelicals, of course) :)
..and on it goes:
ReplyDeleteFrom Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-GA) remarks at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, 2012, in Hartwell, Georgia:
"BROUN: God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.
And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that."
Note: 94% of scientists vote
Democrat
Well you know what they say about the Crusades, it was originally in response to the aggression and conquering instincts of Muslims. Read up on your Ottoman Empire. Wasn't the Pope at the time originally protecting Vatican City? Sure there's enough blame to go around but let's be fair historically.
ReplyDeleteI've never understood this historical conflict between Science and Religion, Pope Benedict doesn't either. I'm sure you're aware BB that many Protestants are Sola-Scriptura(ists) and so if the Bible told them to stand on their heads and twirl around once a day they'd do it. Catholics are more likely to see the allegorical parts of Biblical reading. Where Saty makes an important mistake here is when she implies I somehow agree with everything the Christian activists say.
ReplyDeleteHistorically speaking there were dozens of 'crusades'. I was referring to the classical crusades
ReplyDelete1-9, 1096-1271. By the time of the Ottoman expansion, Arab knowledge
had been transferred. The Ottoman
threat was treated to three further
crusades (1350-1460) which featured
the Pope providing 40,000 gold ducats to the hardpressed Bulgarians. If the Pope also
provided the typical plenary indulgences of the time to Vlad the Impaler....t'was probably in
hindsight a bad move....
..but, we did get the little footstool furniture piece...the
ottoman. As to the Catholic Church
and science, I agree, most are not
biblical literalists and the vatican does a good job with the
relationship.
Vlad the Impaler, aka Dracula.
ReplyDelete