Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
October 11, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
What if the Liberals Win in November?
Dear K.,
How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win. The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country. Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:
* Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
* A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.
* Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
* Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.
* Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.
* A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.
* An increase in taxes to push new social programs.
* Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.
* Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.
* We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.
Go Vote! Encourage Others To Do The Same.Sign up to stayed informed! Visit the American Family Association at http://www.afa.net/ today!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
| You are receiving this mailing because you participated in an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert. In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your subscription e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence. We do not divulge, nor make available to any third party, our subscription list. Your privacy is paramount to us!
If you are a Federal Civilian, Postal or Military Employee, please consider AFA (#2058) for your annual CFC participation. Questions or comments about AFA? Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail. |
 |
[expanded slightly from my comment at http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/09/madonna-crucified-veggie-tales-maimed.html The immediately-following is most of the text from the American Family Association's email alert regarding the editing of Veggie Tales.....check for bias and assumptions, of course, as it is rather full of those: NBC: Bible Verses In Veggie Tales Offensive, But Not Madonna's Mockery Of The Crucifixion Of Christ
Dear K.,
NBC anti-Christian bigotry continues. This time NBC censored Bible verses and expressions of Christian love from the children's cartoon Veggie Tales being shown Saturday mornings on NBC.
NBC says comments such as "God made you special and He loves you very much" were offensive and censored them from the show.
In response to the outrage over the allegations that NBC was ordering the removal of any references to God and the Bible from the animated series, the network first issued a flat denial. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, NBC said they had to "clip off the beginning and ending tags, which are Bible verses, but they were also arguably the easiest cut to make."
The creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, said NBC's excuse for censoring the Bible verses was not true. Vischer said, "Well, that's kinda funny, because as the guy required to do all the editing, I know that statement is false...The show wasn't too long, it was too Christian. The show was already cut down to the proper length, so timing had nothing to do with it."
NBC then backpeddled: "NBC is committed to the positive messages and universal values of Veggie Tales. Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Evidently NBC considers not being truthful as one of their "universal values."
Vischer said had he known how much censorship NBC would exercise, he would not have signed on for the network deal.
Censored were comments such as: "Calm down. The Bible says we should love our enemies." And "the Bible says Samson got his strength from God. And God can give us strength, too."
NBC says using Bible verses or referring to God is offensive to some non-Christians. But NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians. (Please read the review.)
This will seem a strong statement, and it is: The real reason the religious content is being censored is that the networks are run by people who have an anti-Christian bias. I noticed this anti-Christian bigotry and spoke out against it over 25 years ago. I'm sorry if someone thinks that is too harsh, but I must speak the truth as God leads me to see the truth. [....] ] Personally, I'm inclined to see this rather clearly as NBC's trying to reach the most people in a general way, without promoting either any particular religion or cluster of religions (i.e., those which would quote the Old Testament incessantly to substantiate even the most universal of moral and ethical values). Saved, unsaved, it's all hot air and torch-brandishing -- how people treat each other is more important than in whose name or with whose words they happen to do it. With Veggie Tales, I can surmise that NBC's editors were trying to reach a broader audience for the positive material itself, regardless of the faith or lack thereof of potential viewers -- with Madonna, even though I personally tend to think she's a pretentious flake, the valid conflict going on here is whether NBC should allow her to be shown making a humanitarian point while utilizing a religiously-vested tableau. The concept of crucifixion of the innocent, though, is larger than the Christian mythos/dogma from which it arose, and so more people are likely to see the symbolic level of what is being meant than are likely to take it as being an attack on Christianity. Honestly, the most it could technically be is a misappropriation, and that presupposes that Christianity's events can be said to "belong" to a particular group instead of being, as Pope Benedict commented, an essential part of European heritage -- and therefore its mental/emotional language as well. It's already there and it's not going out of our heads as a meaningful scene, therefore it has a psychological currency that is not limited to those who take it literally. The lovely Litharriel comments via IM, btw, that the AFA and its ilk can have their Veggie Tales pristinely uncut once they stop trying to dictate the terms of other people's artistic expression. They can't have their cake and eat it too, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (End of proverbial insert) All in all, I think NBC is doing a commendable job so far of trying to keep the peace and not try to impose anything religiously-partisan upon its viewers. That doesn't mean expunging material, but making sure that that material is not a dictation of formal religious beliefs to those who may not share them.
Which means another of my notorious online groups...>:) Religioholics Anonymous is opening its doors, to provide those addicted to the mindless worship of their faith with enlightenment as to the nature of reality: No faith (or anti-faith) has a monopoly on fanaticism and atrocities and crimes against humanity; no faith is immune from the consequences of thinking itself above all others and justified in forcing its ways on all. Here's what we got.......... Religioholics
[From the Latin religio, to bind together, + common suffix -holic, cf. alcoholic, addicted to alcohol--hence, those who are addicted to the pursuit of binding everyone together by hook or by crook, by force, deceit or constant mental/emotional pressure, in the belief that their own religion or philosophy is the sole absolute truth and thus ought to be made universal and enforced as such. A common mental disease, manifested in both violent and covertly manipulative forms. See also chronic proselytizers, zealots, fundamentalists, fanatics, and orthodoxy(esp. as opp. to heterodoxy)]
Recovery from religioholism is a long and often harrowing process of detachment from trying to dictate other people's lives and personal practise. The most severe cases, to be honest, either never recover atall or at most switch their allegiance to another absolutist structure of faith, whether theistic or atheistic, that must support them by claiming to be all-encompassing and infallible. Such people are never content with their own beliefs and values as lived by themselves, but demand that their whole families, communities, nations and even the whole world must follow the same way under penalty of censure, punishment, death and/or damnation.
O people of stiff necks and rigid doctrines, know that thine ancestral enemy thinks and acts and commits against others by even the same methods as thou...and therefore I ask thee, how art thou so very special in thy faith?
Let's explore a bit, shall we?
This is going to be rather like 'stupid human tricks'....posting news and discussion of the ideological idiocy that people descend to once they think their creed in superior to everyone else's and ought to be in control. It's tragic. It's age-old and ongoing. But day by day, mind by mind and soul by soul, we can work together for a cure. -
Credocide --[lit., "belief-killing", from the Latin credo, lit., I believe (root of the now-general religious term "creed") + -cide < caedere, to cut down, kill.] The acute act or ongoing process of eliminating unfavoured/deviant beliefs/attitudes (and the persons who practice them without actual harm/insult to others) through persecution, violence, murder, expulsion, specialized discriminatory legislation, censorship, brainwashing/'re-education' or any other means other than that of rational and open civil discourse. Engaged in historically by most major religions (whether they'll officially admit it or not) and by all movements typically characterized as cults or totalitarianisms. The predominant unwritten and unprosecuted crime against the human intellect and spirit, committed or attempted by many without knowledge of what they do or why, driven only by that primal urge to remake the world of others in one's own image, regardless of whether or not it happens to be in their own best interests. Very similar to genocide, but a helluva lot harder to prove in existing courts of law...... Some prime conspicuous examples: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests and forced conversions of the Americas, the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and the gulags, China's Cultural Revolution, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Scientology, the Bush II administration.....feel free to add on your own example or elaboration of intolerant absolutist philosophy/religion that will admit no honest challenge.
[Collected posts I've made in my newsgroup hyperlucidity over this situation] ================================================== Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:16 pm Actually, the central idea of this is the first and only intelligent/enlightened thing he's said since I've heard of him --and now people are getting upset, when it wasn't about rolling back the right to abortions, or repealing same-sex marriage in Canada, but the central fallacy of all absolute religions? Of course, he doesn't quite get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- but shouldn't that be the place to start the criticism on any humanistic grounds, not with the incident of it being taken as an insult against one religion that actually does have people doing stupidly theofanatical things in the present day? Here's the Fox fulltext -- and the AP story below that's the one found on Yahoo News from yesterday. The Fox story paraphrased but did not quote directly what he said (not quite fair and balanced), and the upshot of what he said happens to be the one thing that all religions should be taking into account. Perhaps they omitted it because it strikes a potential blow at the feet of American forcible theocracy? --Aurey P.S.--I suspect that some Orthodox and other Eastern Christians will be rather put out over both the pat citing of the text as "obscure[and] medieval" and of the assumption of the Pope as being "the highest cleric in Christianity." Sounds like a whole lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.......and just rarin' for another go at the whole Crusade/jihad exercise at overgeneralization and prejudice. Doesn't anyone study the history of religions anymore? ( Religious Leaders Across Mideast Rage Against Pope's Comments on Islam) ( Muslim leaders condemn Pope's speech, want apology) _______________________________ Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:35 am I'm not saying he's any less bad than they are either -- but whether he meant it or not, what he said himself (i.e., not just quoting Palaeologos, who was a medieval Byzantine) ought to be given weight...again, whether he likes the full import of it or not. That's what he ought to be challenged on, though -- the Catholic Church's own record of spreading the faith by the sword, and the necessity of all faiths (and philosophies) forever recanting and refusing that method of literal "ideological warfare". It's what we need, no matter who happens to say it .I don't downplay how bad Stalin and Hitler were either, but they said a lot of insightful things about what they were doing and how they read the hearts and minds of people to do it. I'd rather understand and respond to their words logically than censure (or censor) them. Not to mention that I have no fondness for catering to the thin-skinnedness of any religion, no matter how militant. Aurey ______________________________ [This is where I posted the post closely previous to this one, with bulleted observations]_____________________________ Date: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 am Okay, here's some context for the actual attitude that was being taken here through the speech, and the entire transcript (located under the American spelling of the title) can be read here: http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748 ....So, that's what he was trying to say--that he thinks the field of reason should and must re-embrace theology as a natural study, rather than relegating it to the realm of the utterly subjective. Which is not too far from my own views, but then I still would have to resist the trend (which I can't imagine him not supporting) to consider religion to be mandated by (supposed) logical proof, as it seems his direction must inevitably be if he is opposed to the 'subjective' diversity of beliefs and practices. Because A, it might or might not be actually "true" as allegedly proven (choose your premises carefully), and B, even if something is true, if it harms no one to believe/practise otherwise or in a different version at the surface, then why press the issue? It is far more important for people to interact decently as fellow humans than to agree on the same exact creed, and I think a good deal more attention in the philosophical vein, since it's been brought up, ought to be re-addressed to the subject of ethics and responsible social interaction with others as equal beings. --Aurey
- It might possibly seem from some of my posts recently that I'm standing up for the Pope as the "good guy" against a wave of hypersensitive Muslim fanatics. This is not precisely true, seeing as I consider him personally to be a scant few degrees more rational in civilized behaviour and intellectual detachment from his topic -- and those are only surface characteristics, easily assumed by the most rabid fundamentalist of any stripe with sufficient knowledge and practice. The one stance within his speech that badly needs due recognition is that religion ought to have a sense of reason, instead of assuming itself (pardon my language) sacrosanct and the rational disciplines accounting it all subjective delusion and neurological imprinting. Unfortunately, his idea of religion and social doctrine is hardly rational nor humane enough for me, so I consider him a poor choice to be making that point. But then you have the religious insult factor, and it becomes apparent that some people are completely unwilling to be rational with their religion and allow that it might have factors that show it in a bad light -- instead, they merely make those flaws the more apparent by jumping to conclusions and violence. Pope Benedict may have studied more about Islam than any pontiff before him, but it's a fair bet that over well 90% of the Muslims who are/have been railing against him are completely uninformed about his position relative to both the U.S. and to the (split) history of Christianity overall, which I've been trying to give some insight on lately. A well-educated man who addresses a gathering of peers and students is probably not expecting to be taken literally-and-skewedly by those outside who have no basis in that academic discipline, but due to the constant technological publicity of our world it is possible to become outraged over secondhand remarks far more quickly than one would have had time to absorb the entire presentation in person. Which is why I tend to ignore most of the hype and outrage around socio-political gaffes until I can take them in context with the event and preferably get to the original source material (like I said, I found the link to that actual speech and posted it here). To react to mere words without as much perspective as possible on where they came from is ill-educated and at the mercy of whatever opinion-framer wants to set their agenda by the hypersensitivity of others......but what we see clearly here is that a majority of the people on this earth are far more keen on burning the finger in effigy than seeing where it was pointing at the moment of taken affront. That is, at the idea that it is inherently irrational to enforce faith by violence, and thus against the nature of divinity itself. A better and wiser man would have said far more than that; a more practical and prudent man would have said far less. Personally, I'm inclined to see some truth in the (trying to remember name) supposed prophecy regarding the scheduled Popes before the Antichrist shows up....remember, this was going around a lot online before the papal election? 'Benedict' was one of the implied names -- it means "speaking well/goodness", like a 'benediction' is a blessing -- but going together with an ultimately ineffectual stance against the tide of negative events. In this case, the extreme intellectual sophistication of Cardinal Ratzinger, and his eloquence in favour of traditionalist doctrine and the purity of the Roman Catholic Church, are no defense nor immunity from being a doormat/assistant (however you wanna look at it) to the rising tide of terminal extremism sweeping the globe. Personally, considering his former office (and his known views)....well, let's just say I haven't not been expecting it....:- Of course, he could just be asking for it, trying to start another Crusade.....um, yeah, who the hell deliberately goes around picking fights with Muslims unless they've got 'em in high-security/no-media confinement? Personally, I don't think that the present Pope is quite so much of an self-motivated martyr for that (otherwise why retain the Swiss Guard and the bulletproof Popemobile?), though I'm fairly sure that he thought he would be helping things in some positive fashion by advocating religious rationality as opposed to religious irrationality. The problem is, that only works when there's a bridge of communication between you and your intended audience. There may have been one between him and the audience in the room, but there was (consequently?) none between him and the millions of Muslims who only got the bit that quoted about Islam being "evil and inhuman". [Note: Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos was unable to be reached for comment on his own research and perspective regarding Islam and the prior condition of the Arabic culture within which it arose. His statements must therefore be taken as coming from a relatively contemporary and personal experience of the religion's effects on/surrounding the Byzantine Empire of the 15th century.]For the record--I do not trust the Pope in any degree, nor do I agree with any of his signature/endorsed policies that have come out of the Vatican. I am not now nor have I ever been (in this life at least) a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though I'm related to quite a few of them and went to a Catholic school for first grade. But I do believe that irrational religions are dangerous (as are those that hide behind a pretense of rationality), and that it is far better to have an intelligent and civil dialogue with those of other beliefs than to berate, harass, socially and legally discriminate, tax and stigmatize, torture, brainwash and kill in the name of any god or the absence thereof. [Admittedly, that can and should be said far more clearly and explicitly than it was....but hell, how much circumspection can you expect from the supreme leader of one of the oldest and most absolutist denominations in the world? Expect chauvinism and condescension from a pope -- that way you won't be disappointed when the status quo remains unchanged or becomes regressively entrenched.]But anyhow, anyone in these days who has a significant problem with that above concept probably hasn't thought very much about the state of this world -- or else they are willing to destroy it and the rest of humanity for the sake of what they think will be heavenly favour in the world to come. [Gee, won't they be surprised.....]
Some perceived assumptions and between-the-lines observations here: * Despite the fact that Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity and is hardly agreed with by all others, the Pope is being assumed as the head of Christianity so far as this debate goes, and most Muslims who do not know (hell, why should they bother?) the history of Christianity assume that he speaks for far more people than he actually does. * It is also being assumed (hmm, possibly because it's been harped upon so much by evangelical Christian conservatives?) that the United States itself is an inherently Christian nation and that that is the essence of its apparent bias against Islamic nations and entities. * From points one and two, it is also being assumed that the Pope has connection with the United States (its administration) in terms of influence and agenda, even though that is only the case in terms of social mores and prejudices that are already shared by the vast majority of Muslims and all of "traditional" Islamic cultures. * The first three points, taken together, imply a Christian crusade being led by the United States against Islam as a whole, with the Pope as the clerical leader/figurehead/spokeperson. * The repeated demands for a personal apology from the Pope, taking into account his perceived standing as the highest cleric in Christendom, are in actuality a call for symbolic capitulation by one religion to another. * This wave of demands is being backed by the threat and actuality of anti-Christian violence, regardless of denomination or solidarity with the Pope's supposed anti-Islam bias. * This reaction, seeing as it has not been tempered with any calls to buck Koranic literality and repudiate the concept of external jihad (i.e., 'fighting the good fight' against others instead of within oneself), only reinforces the original observation of Emperor Manuel Palaeologos that Islam has an irrational bent towards spreading the faith by the sword. * This is not to say that Christianity has not had a similar bent throughout its official span as a state-recognized/adopted religion, but it is well worth noticing that Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire) after the great schism was not part of this historical trend of conquering and enforced conversion, but on the contrary bore the attacks of the Crusaders from the West under the orders/permission of the Pope, who had not exactly made it clear that the inhabitants of Constantinople at that time were of the same essential faith......(oops, his bad)... * Greek religion/philosophy (whether Pagan or Christian or otherwise) has always had a tendency to debate rather than just enforce its beliefs, and to merely consider those who could not accept them as being intellectually benighted (believe me, I've read enough Orthodox apologetics to have ample proof of this--they far prefer the art of intellectual/psychological argument to that of brute ecclesiastical force, and this is part of a general East-West split as well in terms of ideological extremes). It's the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant alike) that have had the most pronounced trends to violence in spreading and enforcing their beliefs upon others. This said, it is a bit deceptive (though intentionally mild?) that Pope Benedict would choose a Byzantine source rather than a Latin one to introduce his point of violence being unjustified in the cause of faith. * To put words in the mouths of those who feel justified in threatening violence against all who mention the historical (and recent) violence done in the name of Islam, I need only quote Curly Howard: "Hey!--I resemble that remark!!"* Islam was originated in a reaction against the prior establishment (and cultural status/stability) of Judaism and Christianity. It may have had some 'angelic'/supernatural inspiration, but there is no logical way that it can claim any greater revelation without having addressed in its own scriptures the real and central theological concerns of those religions as they stood at that point in time. If one is to assume possession of an "insider's perspective" on divine matters, then one must also have that same perspective and knowledge of how things are going among believers on earth to warrant a new prophet and a new message. Without sufficient evidence that Mohammed (through Gabriel as cited) had accurate knowledge of the theological premises that Jews and Christians were actually operating under in their pre-existing belief/practice, there is no logical reason why they should accept that his was any better message than that which they already had. One can clearly argue that Jesus understood his own religious upbringing and culture well enough to see where it was failing "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but the most that one can logically see in Mohammed's own personal motives is a desire for cultural solidarity among his own people, together with an implied oneupsmanship towards the established Jewish and Christian cultures. It is no surprise that they tended to resist his claims; it is no surprise that (given their own 'Abrahamic' tendency towards zealotry and no compromise) there has been perpetual strife wherever people take any of these religions too seriously in intolerance of others and their own beliefs. Put two or three of them together, and one gets either a mutual massacre or a pan-monotheistic theocratical regime against all others. I'm not sure which option strikes me as the lesser of two evils, but at least with the first you actually have a chance of the meek inheriting the earth once the fanatics are done killing each other. * I believe (as do most sane people, I think) that any religion that thinks it justified to kill others if they don't convert to it or adhere to its social mores is morally wrong. And regarding the difference between a social more and an actual crime, there are only a limited amount of things that one can consider as unequivocal crimes against others, and it's better to stick to the here and now (and already-born) in terms of determining what those offenses are so far as explicit law, rather than expanding/maintaining the list of assumed offences (according to sentiment and scriptural interpretation) without providing a clear and rationally-undeniable argument for each one's universal validity. This applies to all beliefs that want to expand their beliefs/practices into the general sphere of conduct -- they have to prove that whatever they want to forbid is actually and consistently a source of harm to all, regardless of whether it's done willingly or not. I.e., it should require an objective proof and not merely an emotional/scriptural one, if it's to be accepted as an objective and universal standard of restriction. * If Pope Benedict should be called to task and made to apologize for anything in this particular case, it's for the many many instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has spread and maintained itself through the use of violence, harassment, censure & silencing, destruction, torture and execution. To this date, the Spanish Inquisition itself is officially conceded only as an unfortunate footnote and misunderstanding, rather than one of the most determined and aggressive acts of genocide (actually, I think I'll use the apter term " credocide"...) in history. That is the missing part of his speech, in terms of having any moral standing from which to speak. One cannot honestly attack the faults of another religion without admitting where they have been shared by one's own, and Palaeologos was likely in a far better position to make such a statement as he did than Pope Benedict would have been to declare it in his own right. * End point, though, he didn't say it himself, he only used it to make the more general point that no religion is justified in using violence to perpetuate itself. Admittedly, he could and should have gone further in terms of applying that dictum, but nowhere did he say anything that could be construed as an essential insult to Islam. Even the original statement was not against Islam in itself so much as the negative methods that it took in establishing itself as a new religion among others, when it could (theoretically) have simply stuck to the essentials of polite religious practice as generally understood, and not started out as such a militant and conversion-intent force that was set on sweeping all others out of the way in this present world and establishing itself as a total all-encompassing theocracy. Even Judaism was originally tribal-territorially limited in its aspirations, and Christianity was assumed to be an underdog of spiritual integrity without temporal ambitions up until the point when it was adopted by Emperor Constantine as his state religion, and then officially mandated as such in AD 380. That's about 350 years from its founding until its being used as a rationale for oppressing/coercing those of other faiths (with a lot of persecution experienced in between), whereas Mohammed wrote the precepts of external jihad into the Medina-era hadiths without much ado or delay. Some might say he was jumping the gun just a tad, if he wanted Islam to be known as (as some have loudly asserted it) a religion of peace and tolerance. Some might say that he just wanted to get as quickly as possible to the position of worldly rule/influence that it had taken both Jews and Christians centuries of endurance and longsuffering to get to in any appreciable degree. Either way, he didn't really go about it very wisely, so far as foreseeing (surely the Archangel could have told him this?) a future in which many religions including his own would be split and diversified and spread over all lands to deal with each other as best they could, and in which any religious injuction to violence against others would be an inevitable liability to the faith should it be taken seriously/literally. It is the tragedy of all religions with large bodies of sacred scriptures and codes, that they tend to cling to the letter (or assumed letter) of those things like children instead of understanding their spirit, and take a long time to evolve with their world and find maturity in the greater social reality that cannot be pinned under one creed or observance. Or even the utter lack thereof, as some would gladly have it. There's as little justification for destroying religions wholesale as there is for enforcing them absolutely -- the best thing to do for all concerned is just to admit that no one can claim to be justified by their own faith & scriptures in forcing their ways on all. No one, no matter who, because the civil law (in order to be called civil, one might think) should always be wider than the sum scope of the religions within its jurisdiction. Not narrower, not restricting them down to the most conservative end of common practise. If it "threatens" your personal beliefs to not be able to threaten and bully and legislate others into following your own prejudices (or letting you practise them without any liability), then either you've got a weak belief or a rather faulty religion to believe in. And no doubt I could expand on those last few paragraphs a good deal, but that's for other blogposts and such. In general, though, I think that everyone in the center of this is suffering from a widespread lack of understanding (or responsible explanation) of history, and that most are suffering (whether they'll ever admit it or not) from an unfortunate tendency to jump to vehemently outraged conclusions. Is the concept of jihad against all "infidels" something that peaceable and civilized Muslims really ought to be defending as part-and-parcel of their religion's honour?--now there's a good question. Not that anyone's actually going to dare to ask it, of course.... ___________________________________________ =========================================== Articles of recent provenance regarding this situation: Pope stops short of apology to Muslims (Yahoo/AP) Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar (Daily Telegraph) God is not to be second-guessed (Daily Telegraph) Excerpt: [...Pope Benedict did not claim, and does not believe, that Islam is wicked. On the contrary, he has made a closer study of the Koran than any previous pontiff. As he said yesterday, he acknowledges that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians.
His point, rather, was that the spread of religion through coercion is indefensible. Some Muslims share this view, and some do not. But the Pope unquestionably raised an important point, as may be inferred from the reaction to his words: insulted by the suggestion that their religion was violent, thousands of young men took to the streets to threaten violence.The awkward truth is that all three Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, urge intolerance on their followers. The Old Testament is every bit as hard on those who go whoring after other gods as is the Koran. Here is the Book of Judges: "Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars" (2:2). And here is the Koran: "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" (47:4). In practice, of course, the followers of the monotheistic faiths do not generally do these things....]What the pope said (Daily Telegraph) --actual /official statements made thus far _____________________________________________________ ===================================================== [All death threats/etc. will be read and responded to logically. Which incidentally comes from the Greek word/concept logos, which some understand to be the guiding principle of reason and justice and balance in the universe.......]
=============================================================== Okay....so, is this so hard to understand, or just to prioritize properly? (I know, I know, you can't expect people to have human consciences anymore, not when national security's at stake...) If you say that you have a right to treat your enemy captives without Geneva Convention regulations as guideline, then what reason do your enemies have to use any restraint whatsoever when they capture any of your guys? These things were established for a reason of mutual self-protection, not just some imagined namby-pambyism of "being nice to the prisoners"....and honestly, unless you've either been through a POW/torture situation yourself or read/seen and felt a damn visceral lot of the subject, you're not entitled to make decisions that may wind up putting your troops in that kind of unbridled jeopardy. Especially when you're dealing with people who behead journalists and and stone homosexuals....oh wait, that's one ideal ya got in common there, isn't it...? Commander-in-chief, my ass...the man and the minions/handlers about him have no sense of valuing the lives of their fellow Americans, if they think that selectively ignoring treatment standards is going to make anyone inside or fighting for this country any safer....
|
