Bigotry and the Common Blog
I found this interesting article on National Review, and thought I'd share it. I enjoy the fact that Islam is still being preserved from criticism, even much deserved criticism. It seems that no progress has been made since the riots following the pope's call to reason at Regensburg.
Threaten enough people and I guess you get your way. Perhaps when Christians begin to cut off the heads of their detractors they will be afforded the same deference. I doubt that very much, for it often seems that anti-Christian sentiment is the last acceptable bigotry. Is it because we are "the Establishment" religion? Perhaps so. Europeans are increasingly godless and it has ever been the fashion of the American societal elite to ape Europe. Give him enough time, and the common man begins to ape the ape in a bid for the appearance of sophistication.
The other week I had the occasion to attempt a dialogue with another Voxer who had made it very clear that she didn't like my particular religion. She trotted out the usual litany of abuses committed by my Church over the years, but focused primarily on the sexual abuse scandal among the clergy. When I offered a counterpoint to her views, I was unfortunately met with "The Wall." That is, the "this is my personal view and I don't want to be criticized for it" wall. Now, I would hope that anyone who reads my piddling excuse for a blog would understand my frustration. Anything I post in public I understand to be open to criticism. Especially if I post something critical to another person's beliefs. Sometimes, I border on the insulting. I'd hate to be labeled a troll, but there is a point at which letting an accusation or a misconception stand is tantamount to agreement. So it seems I am constantly stepping on the toes of liberals, atheists, global warming nuts and even Protestants.
It's all quite frustrating, because at the end of the day the Internet just isn't real. The victories I might win are easily ignored. The points I make are suspect because the conversation begins with me as an intruder on a particular person's public space (which makes no sense to me...the Internet is hardly private). So what is the point of it all?
Well, I still believe that we can carry our principles with us even when we are completely anonymous. I feel that the anonymity allows us to engage in debate devoid of the usual obfuscations of personal pride and ego. Rhetorical tactics can still be used to great effect, but the debate can be essentially neutral without lacking substance.
What we say on the Internet actually is real and it matters. I still believe that relativism is the thing that will doom us to half-witted expressions of banal tolerance for even the worst sorts of offenses. And so I suppose I am going to continue feeling awkward and unpopular amongst my many anonymous Internet acquaintances.
Whose commentary, as always, I welcome.
The Evolution of Religious Bigotry
Courage without consequence.
By Jonah Goldberg
I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for “strife” or “ordeal.”
Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch didn’t ban the film.
Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing “hatred.”
Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.
During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.
At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.
It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).
Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.
In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXΘΥΣ” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”
I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.
The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.
As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.”
But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.
Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.
Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.
Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.
It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.
It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.
Comments
Don't worry about the "global warming nuts", Al Gore will attend to them when his buddy Obama gives him a real job.This made me laugh.
The tolerance of hating Christians/Christianity is a double-standard that I will never understand. Well, I do understand it because it's Biblical (John 15:18), so it may be more accurate to say that the willing blindness of the tolerance touters to it is mind-boggling.
I saw a bumper sticker with a larger Christian fish eating a smaller Darwin fish. LOL A classic! "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.
Also just so it doesn't appear that I am being discriminatory, I am also scornful of all who incite violence no matter what their religious or non-religious beliefs.
Great line! I wonder if most "Darwinists" know that they would be beheaded next to us Christians, if the Islamic radicals had their way.
Despite what Chezz-C'Tack may say, I've never known a true Christian who has a heart full of hate and anger. But I see it everywhere in non-Christian religions (including the elitism of atheism and humanism, which are a form of religion in themselves) and the liberal left. Why is it that those groups seem to be synonymous?
Unfortunately, many times, even in this anonymous forum, a lot of posts and comments are not devoid of "personal pride and ego." I think a lot of time this forum allows people the "bravery" of anonymity, and I've seen lots of bloggers hide behind obscure photos and nicknames while spewing their anger and skewed or illogical rhetoric out to the general populace for all to see and hear. They type things in this forum that they would be loathe to say in public. Case in point, I've only been blogging a few months, but recently got an on-line stalker! (I know, welcome to cyberspace. I'm glad to report, he's been deleted from Vox.) But this guy(?) was encouraged to follow me around on Vox and post his(?) vile in reply to any comment I made just because he felt "safe" in his anonymous status. Though he may be a sociopath in real life, more than likely he is just a really sad person who would be terrified if I confronted him in person. Internet = False courage.
Well, you are certainly not unpopular. Even if you attract those that disagree with you, you have a lot of bloggers out there who like to post to your comments! And as one of your many anonymous Internet acquaintances, I will keep posting my comments to you so long as you keep putting your well scripted opinions out here. As for tolerance, well, I'm a Protestant, but I'll tolerate you anyway... ;)
Curious. What exactly is a true Christian?
Please define a true Christian, because seriously it seems to me there isn't any consensus on this matter.
Are these Islamic radicals you are talking about true Muslims? Are you saying that all Muslims have hate and anger in their hearts?
Oh come on can we please have a little bit of balance here and less generalisation and putting Christianity up as the gold standard of religions when it comes to love and peace. There are good and bad people in ALL religions and seriously do you really believe that Christianity has the monopoly on love and peace especially when compared to say Buddhism and Jainism for example.
and, wow, i didn't realize that failing to believe that some invisible man in the sky created the earth and everything on it made us smug
on one issue, i agree - ignoring the overwhelming LACK of scientific evidence in this case on the grounds of religious belief wouldn't really insulate anyone from my mockery, should i chose to mock on those grounds - which i don't - i rarely bother
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
-- Carl Sagan
Lets see should I take great offence at this comment in your profile or should I laugh it off?
"As for liberals, let’s abort them and save the children, then convert them all to GOD and the GOP!"
Oh no please don't convert the poor little things to GOP, how can you be so cruel? By the way I didn't realise that being a liberal also meant that a liberal doesn't believe in God, but I am sure it is written in the GOP Bible some where.
I guess if some of you can't laugh off a variation of a fish then I should take offence at your comment, which was just a joke after all or was it?
if i am beheaded for my belief in evolution, then at least i won't end bored to tears in some idyll of a heaven - so be it - besides, the way things are going in the US, it's the Radical Christians who'll be doing the beheading - they've always been so adept at inciting intolerance, bigotry and violence against people who's lifestyle they don't agree with and at ridiculing people who's science conflicts with their dogma..and...oh, need i go on...well, there's always the direct blowing up of abortion clinics in the name of their god or Jesus
interesting and troubling that you write that you see "hate and anger" in all "non-Christian" religions, while "true Christians" (always find this a funny term) seems to have the monopoly on all that is "good" - huh
So here are some examples of conservative Christian brave contempt. Now lets consider this it is the US we are talking about where most citizens are Christians and especially if they are conservatives, so by inference I would say that if most conservatives are Christians then these bumper stickers and badges would be made by Christian conservatives for Christian conservatives.
"Conservatives hate what people do. Liberals hate who people are" Oh really, lets see what the next sticker has to say about that.
"Life's a bitch, don't vote for one..." - followed by photo of Hilary Clinton. Gee no sign of conservative hatred there.
"Liberals Suck" - Yes very original.
"Save the baby seals - Club a liberal" - Oh how very sweet and loving, Jesus couldn't have said it better.
"kick their ass and take their gas" - This is interesting, can someone clarify is this an admission as to why we are in Iraq or is there another meaning that my dumb liberal mind doesn't get?
"GOD is a Conservative" - He is? Really? Hmmmm I wonder if God knows that, seems like using God's name in vain to me. Oh well Jesus is a liberal, so I guess that is okay.
"Liberalism a mental disorder"
"World Peace through superior firepower" - Yep because violence is the only solution, I am sure Jesus said that some where.
"Liberal - Someone so open-minded that their brains fell out"
Plus many more of these peaceful and loving bumper stickers can be found at the following websites:
Bumper Talk and
All Right Gear "Where you will find all of the gear Conservatives, Republicans or Christians need to support the capitalist economy and offend a whining, complaining, leftist, liberal Democrat."
You know what I couldn't care a less what bumper sticker you people want to put on your car, it is all rather weird to me anyway, given I come from Australia and these sort of bumper stickers are totally foreign to most of us over here. But you know what does bug me, is the attitude you conservative Christians seem to have. You seem to think you are morally superior and above all of this stuff and quite frankly you are no better, so stop being so smug and full of self righteousness and just accept that you are not totally void of hatred after all.
Also do you really think that it is brave to put these bumper stickers on your cars which demean liberals, after all if there was any group less likely to behead some one for an offence it would be us bleeding heart liberals, after all we are all a bunch of weak pacifists.
So you have a great day as well.
Curious. What exactly is a true Christian?
Please define a true Christian, because seriously it seems to me there isn't any consensus on this matter.
By "true" Christians, I mean those that truly follow the tenets of Jesus. Things like "love your neighbor", "pray for them that despise you and say all manner of evil against you", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "if someone slaps you on the left cheek, turn your right cheek to him, also" and "if someone takes your cloak (coat), give to him your tunic (shirt), also". Those are Jesus' words, and that is a religion full of love for your fellow man. That is a religion that puts others above self. A person who bombs an abortion clinic or beats a gay man to death is not a true Christian, whatever he may espouse, because he does not follow the commandments of Christ. (Here's another one: "If you love ME, keep my commandments.")
As a Christian, you can condemn an action as wrong (ie: abortion, homosexuality), without holding malice or hate in your heart against the people who commit those actions; the Bible tells us to preach the truth in love. Unlike Islam, wherein the actual writings of Muhammad are violent. His "surahs" (scriptures) in the Qu'ran encourage "jihad" (holy war) against others who believe differently. The religious writings of Mohammad teach his followers that men should beat others into submission of their will: unbelievers, women, children, and if that is ineffective, then kill them. The MSM wants Americans to believe that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, but their actions and their own religious writings preach differently. Don't believe me? See here: Fitna I'm no mind reader, so you tell me what is in the hearts of these men? Actions always speak louder than words.
Really? It seems to me that anti-war groups like Code Pink and pro-Homosexual groups with militant agendas are the ones inciting intolerance, bigotry and violence. Christians who disagree end up in jail. Funny, I can't think of one Christian group in America who has been in the news for beheading...
Okay we do at least agree on what a true Christian should be, well we appear to agree. I question whether many high profile televangelist type Christians are true Christians especially some with an ultra RW agenda. But it is not for me to judge them; it is for a higher power than me. Unfortunately these are the type of Christians who will be happy when we totally nuke the Middle East and bring on their man made Armageddon and destroy the world - so rather dangerous people in my mind, just as dangerous to world peace as the radical Muslims. These Christians are turning a large proportion of Christianity into a death cult. Hagee and his kind are very dangerous people with a very dangerous agenda. So maybe at this point in time Christians are not beheading people, but their actions can also cause the deaths of people and their words can incite people to hate and kill.
It seems hypocritical to me that we expect moderate Muslims to speak out against the radical Muslims, but we fail to speak out against radical Christians who also incite violence in the name of Christianity - you may say that these people are not true Christians but if they do something in the name of Christ then we cannot simply ignore them as if they were not speaking in the name of Christianity, that would be hypocritical on the part of Christians. Should we not call them out on it? It seems conservative Christians do not hesitate to call out liberal Christians when it comes to things like abortion and gay rights, but fail to call out the likes of Hagee when he blames Hurricane Katrina on people who are gay or because America allowed Israeli settlers to be removed off Palestinian land and he has also predicted a terrorist bloodbath on America if it supports the two state system in Israel. This man who has a huge following only seems to be criticised due to his comments against the Catholic Church. But should not he be called out on blaming a Hurricane on people who are gay, doesn’t a cry of blame on innocent people increase the likelihood that some Christians under his influence will then in turn treat people who are gay badly in order to try and prevent another natural disaster?
Where do people get these hateful ideas? They get them from the Bible. You know as well as I do that the Bible is not totally full of love and peace and that there are many passages in it that can be used/misused to incite hatred and violence. It seems hypocritical to me that in the film you quoted there is a call that some passages of the Qur’an should be removed, but if the same suggestion was made in reference to the Christian Bible then there would be a Christian outrage. I wonder what would happen to someone living in Europe about 500 to 700 years ago if they drew legs onto a “Jesus Fish”. I suspect they would be burned at the stake for their crime. So what has changed between now and back then when heretics were burned at the stake? The Bible certainly hasn’t changed to any great extent, so why was it okay to burn people at the stake then and it is not okay for the Christian church to do so now. The main reason is that we have become more civilised and don’t generally do those barbaric things, but the many passages in the Bible calling for the death of people for various sins are still there. Some of those passages are still used against people who are gay, if these passages weren’t there then a person could not use Christianity as an excuse for their violence. How could a Christian get away with saying this, “It’s a matter of fact, studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death nail for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat, even in our nation. Even more so than terrorists, or Islam, okay.” So tell me is Sally Kern a real Christian? You are worried about radical Islam but it seems according to Sally your country has a greater threat i.e. people who are gay. Doesn’t talk such as this incites violence? There is a difference to being opposed to sexual promiscuity in any community and saying that a homosexual is more of a threat to the nation than a terrorist. Terrorists get locked up for years without a trial, so what should happen to homosexuals if they are a bigger threat? By the way she has a lot of support in her views. I do not support the hate mail she has received, but I also do not support her over the top words which may incite violence against the LGBT people.
You are right there are passages in the Qur’an which do incite violence. There are also passages in the Qur’an calling for love and peace. The issue is which passages are still relevant and which passages are not. It is unfortunate that many of the cultures where Islam is prominent have not progressed in terms of where they are in terms of civilisation. Their culture does play an important part in their interpretation of their text. There is no doubt there is a serious problem which we need to be aware of when it comes to radical Islam and world peace. But it is wrong to tar every Muslim with the same brush; just as it would be wrong to tar every Christian with the same brush of the Christians you would term “not real” Christians. There are Muslims trying to take a more moderate approach and I think it is important to acknowledge these Muslims and support these Muslims:
http://www.reformislam.org
http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
We in the West do also have to take some responsibility for some of the violence occurring in the Middle East and also much closer to home. Iraq may not have been perfect under Saddam Hussein but women were a lot better off before the current occupation occurred. The invasion of Iraq has not made our world a safer place and of course there will be resentment against the West due to its unwanted presence in the Middle East. The way the US has enabled Israel to oppress the Palestinians is a real issue and the US can pretend all it likes that it isn’t an issue when it comes to terrorism, but it is.
I think that Christianity is the best way to know God. Buddhism is not about God, and Jainism seems to have Godhood as the ultimate goal for a human soul.
The argument can and has been made that when Christians act in ways that are contrary to their faith they are not acting as Christians. Say, blowing up an abortion clinic. Obviously that is a crime, has the potential to harm people, and does damage to the credibility of those who stand for rational opposition to abortion. No thinking Christian would do this and still believe they are acting correctly. But they get the press, you know.
I agree with you that bumper stickers are crass and often pointless expressions that allow one to broadcast their opinion to a world which probably doesn't care to hear it. Jonah Goldberg would probably say the same.
God gave us reason, which allows us to evaluate the positions of others in the context of our beliefs and, yes, judge them accordingly. It is possible to objectively judge that an action is moral or immoral. This is a classic error.
The error made by many Christians is looking for the splinter in his neighbor's eye without removing the beam from his own.
Pastor Hagee does not enjoy wide influence. He has a television show, but his views are not those driving American policies. And, the notion that God has lifted his special protection from America for this or that offense is as old as dirt.
For my money, Hagee's a charlatan and a Catholic-baiter. Bearing in mind that Catholicism is the largest single Christian group in the country with several tens of millions of adherents, and Hagee boasts perhaps several thousand direct followers...I wouldn't worry about him.
I would say that when we're speaking of death in this context it is most likely death of the soul, a rejection of God's love and laws which results in being forever separated from Him. Physical death is no longer acceptable to our understanding, but our understanding was not fully developed in the days of yore. And it is not fully developed yet, I'd add.
Well, so there's your Bible question answered...
Off-topic.
As a follower of Christ, I am insulted by all the Christians out there whining about their persecution. I feel like those who play the victim all the time make the rest of us look like sorry wimps. Speak truth to power; don't try to whine power into being. You were told by your Lord that you are blessed for all your persecution, after all, so if you perceive you are persecuted in this wealthy, spoiled Christian country (which is a laughable notion to me), then embrace it as your lot! But the fact is, you don't have to hide. You can put that Jesus fish right on your bumper an no one's going to stone you for it.
Kids, if you can't handle some cretin pointing and laughing at you for your beliefs; if your faith is that easily shaken, you'd better reevaluate your devotion post haste!
The persecution of Christians in the U.S. is a myth. It's much ado about nothing. Christians make up something like 3/4 of the U.S. but Goldberg wants me to believe Evolutionists playing a bit of satire with the Ichthys is akin to persecution? Bah. That would be funny if it weren't so pathetically sad.
My name is Kirk Starr. I am a Christian, but I am not a victimized wussy. There, I said it.
And don't forget, Jesus took a beating the likes of which you will never see and yet still asked God to forgive his persecutors. How does that jibe with how Christians deal with their supposed persecution today?
And that right there, people, is why it's impossible to have intelligent discourse anymore. Note that Mr. Phelan has completely dismissed his opponent's valid point by playing coy and then accentuating his smug attitude with an obviously false platitude.
Way to go, dude. I couldn't have contrived a more perfect example of passive-aggressive hypocrisy if I tried. Thanks.
Kirk,
I don't recall you being part of the discussion between Chezz and I. But at any rate, if you would like to have "intelligent discourse" with me then say so, don't come on here and dump and say, I am "dismissive" and make other accusation. Finally, Chezz is well spoken enough to engage me, why do you feel it so necessary to speak on Chezz’s behalf? Maybe you need a check on your alter ego.
Oh, sorry about that. I didn't realize it was by invitation only. My bad.
But you were dismissive. I call them as I see them. And that was the only accusation I made.
It's not meant as an insult to Chezz, to be sure. I replied because I was rather put off by your dismissal of his very poignant comment. I felt the need to speak up, so I did. I'm pesky like that.
I have but one persona.
I think that to say Christians are persecuted is overstating things. To say that Islam enjoys a seemingly protected status that is not afforded to Christianity is more balanced. Would you agree?
I thought you worshiped the elder gods.
Let's all make an effort to keep this thread on topic. No liberal bashing, no sniping at conservatives, etc. etc. I don't want this to turn into my Barack Obama thread...
As far as the Elder Gods go, I try not to let them know that I am aware they are only fictional. Makes them angry. I don't want to be eaten. Yet. :P
Perhaps. For the record, I personally think a cartoon of Muhammad is perfectly acceptable. I see it as a "get over it" sort of thing. What it really comes down to is motive. Darwinists are merely being glib with their legged fish. As are the people who made this.
Blessed are those who lighten up, for they shall avoid many ulcers.
The pope made his "inflammatory remarks" about religion and reason, and happened to mention Islam. Riots ensued. Meanwhile, the European Union deletes all mention of Christianity from its charter and all Christians do is lodge a complaint.
All I'd like is the same amount of respect that Islam gets, or for Islam to be treated as Christianity is.
Inasmuch as I like to remain open-minded, I cannot support a belief system that condones beheading people who do not assimilate. Sadly, I am not educated enough in Islam to know if this is the doctrine or some twisted fundamentalist bastardization.
But to more directly answer your question, Islamic upset over silly things like political cartoons is both immature and lacking reason. Just as this should be taken for the joke it is, so should any humor directed at any religion. God isn't a humorless jerk, after all. At least, my God isn't.
I don't know what the pope said or what the details about the EU charter are. I'd have to research those things. For example, does the EU charter mention any religions and was Islam the only religion the pope singled out? They're important factors.
"All I'd like is the same amount of respect that Islam gets, or for Islam to be treated as Christianity is."
Nicely stated
Going off topic is fun, actually I don't mind people going off on tangents on my posts as long as I don't get drawn into the tangent, but this is your blog not mine. But it has been fun and it would have been a boring post if we all agreed with the post and each other. Oh I missed the Obama post now that I could have got into.
Okay I shall try and reply to a few of your points.
Damn you are a party pooper aren't you! That is half of the fun. Actually I do prefer not to take snipes at conservatives, but I can't help myself when I feel generalisations are being made based on whatever label they have been given.
Now back to the topic. The problem is Scio in my opinion the article did have a degree of liberal (progressive) bashing. So why not challenge that aspect of the article.
From the article:
So lets be honest that passage is a swipe at progressives and saying we are a gutless bunch.
I am not so sure about that and I would be happy to be wrong. He has at least 18, 000 actual followers in his local church, many more via his networks. Hagee telecasts on eight major networks, 162 independent television stations, and 51 radio stations throughout the globe broadcasting in over 190 nations. Plus there is also his organisation Christians United for Israel which does have some political support. There are an estimated 20 million Americans who believe in this "End Times" prophesy and lobby US politicians to try and force the issue.
I am glad we agree he is a Charlatan. I was also glad when I found out that he upsets many Catholics, as I knew that would at least diminish some of his influence.
Did I have a Bible question? The point I was making was comparing the Bible to the Qur'an and explaining that both books have passages calling for love and peace or hatred and violence. It is what we do with those passages that makes our religion one of compassion or one of hatred. But there is still the risk in Christianity, Judaism and Islam that those passages can be used justify evil acts.
I think that people in all religions need listen when it comes to unbiased and accurate criticism. Lighten up when the criticism is rather more a joke or poking a bit of fun at religion, I think the God of most religions should be big enough to handle such an act. However if the criticism is totally biased and has an agenda to totally misrepresent, incite hatred against a religion then those people have a right to peacefully protest.
I agree we shouldn't be held to ransom and have our freedom of speech curtailed for fear of possible violent repercussions. In the case of Fitna I do wonder about the motives behind the movie in the first place, as it does seem rather biased. There is no doubt that those events portrayed in the film do occur, but in each case there is no context given to the violent acts which I don't condone, but it is important to know the context of an act to fully appreciate what is going on. For example in the film there is an interview with a young girl and she is describing her feelings towards Jews and from memory she describes them as apes and pigs and apparently she learnt this from the Qur'an. But there is no background as to who this girl is, whereas this girl is from memory a young Palestinian girl aged about 3 years of age, who experiences oppression every day of her life from the Israelis, I think it is a big ask to expect someone especially that young not to have those feelings when they see their family living under terrible circumstances every day. I think we have to put ourselves in some people's shoes before we judge too harshly in some circumstances. However, the clerics who are inciting violence only have my condemnation. They also have the condemnation of many Muslims too and that is something that sadly is not shown in the film.
So that is about it.
Hi Kirk I did appreciate your comment. In this case I was happy just to shrug Jim's comment off, as I said sometimes life is too short.
As for saying things in haste and then regretting them later - You are looking at the mistress (yes I am a female, people make the mistake I am a male all of the time) of that, I am getting better but I have had some real foot in mouth experiences.Just realized I never really answered this question. I appreciate your clarification, Scio, but I'm not sure I can concur. I don't think any ration person would have a problem with railing against beheadings and suicide bombings, but when the entire religion is bashed because of its nutjob fundamentalists, there's a problem. Let's put it to Christianity. Again, I think rational people are in agreement that people like Fred Phelps are crazy nitwits. Phelps and his ilk deserve ridicule and disdain. Does that mean you and I deserve to be lumped in with him?
Now, to be honest, I have yet to see Christians persecuted to any significant degree. Things like satirical fish shapes and people saying Intelligent Design isn't science (a hotbed issue right now) are not persecution.
What he did was give a talk on faith and reason, how they are not exactly strangers. Well, he quoted a Byzantine Emperor on the subject (section II of the link). This Emperor just happened to be under siege from Muslims when he wrote.
Are you saying that we need context to determine if shooting a woman in the head with an AK-47 is appropriate? Drawing a sword and screaming that you will cut the heads from Jews isn't contextual? Prompting a girl to call Jews apes and pigs? Waving a sign that says "the REAL Holocaust is coming?"
Come on. This is clearly a problem, and the attitude you're displaying is exactly what I'm talking about. How many people would be so reserved if I was walking around dressed as a Templar, screaming about liberating Jerusalem? It's the same thing that these Muslims are doing.
I don't want to get hung up on the word persecution. There's a difference in the way that Christianity is criticized. Often it is visceral, gloves off. And Christian leaders generally don't incite violence for that criticism. When legitimate critique is leveled at the Islamic religion some imam pulls out a sword and issues a fatwa.
You remember the riots after the pope's speech. How can we have a dialogue with a religion that causes worldwide, murderous riots in response to an academic lecture? We can't.
Islam's moderate faction has got to be empowered so that they can begin to chart the course for the religion. So we can talk to them. Unfortunately (and this is why I support continued action in the Middle East), the radical faction only understands the language of war. Diplomacy for them is an admission that their cause is lost, for if Allah does not provide them the strength of arms to defeat their foes then perhaps they will question what Allah was saying this whole time.
Or wait, no they won't. Allah is pure will and can directly contradict himself if need be. Another of the pope's major points. This doesn't stand the test of Reason. The Christian God is Truth, not Will, and so binds Himself by His own laws. Interesting...tangent.
Suffice it to say that I do believe that Islam is given a pass, mostly in Europe, and mostly out of fear.
As for the little girl, Scio you totally dismissed the context that I gave for the young girl. I think in that particular case it was important. How can you attempt to solve any problem if you don't at least try and understand what a person is experiencing. What happened to, do not judge people until you have at least tried to understand their circumstances, is that not a Christian value? Of course it is.
I said I did not condone the violent acts.
I said, "The clerics who are inciting violence only have my condemnation."
All I asked for was a less biased approach and a context to some of the parts of the film. Obviously some of the acts of violence are so atrocious that context is not required as it is obvious to see that under no circumstances should they occur. I didn't realise I needed to go through each graphic image and say this needs context and this doesn't.
I would have thought it was obvious why context in a film such as this is needed, no context equals pure propaganda. Perhaps I should make a film and show still photos and short video footage of some actions of US Marines in Iraq, I am sure I could show the US marines in an unfavourable light. I am not condemning the Marines but only using them as an example. I am just saying that photos and video footage without context can be used to demonstrate false perceptions.
But just to make it 100% clear in case you missed it, I do not condone the violence and I accept that some of the footage is so horrible that its full context is not needed to see how bad it is.
You are right there is a real problem, but not all Muslims are acting like this. I also see a total double standard seeing how it appears that if a Christian behaves badly he/she not a real Christian, but if a Muslim behaves badly that person is a Muslim no matter what.
Mired in politically correct language, we miss the point. Fitna attempts to make its case concisely and raises the question, "Why are we allowing this?"
But you must understand that Islam is and has always been a politically motivated religion. These people believe that their Islam is the Islam. Their political goals are religious goals, and their religious goals political.
We should also consider the very different conceptions of God and Allah.
The Christian God is Truth, the Muslim Allah is Will. Allah can, by his will, make evil good, black white, and right wrong. God is bound by His own laws. He declares Truth, and cannot contradict His own Truth. In this way, the Christian approach is less (not completely) vulnerable to the machinations of individuals who might claim that this or that is God's will. There is a body of Christian rational thought which allows us to say, "This is not a good Christian practice."
But a sufficiently motivated imam might be able to swing it so that Allah conveniently wills that cleric's particular political leanings into Muslim orthodoxy.
Moderate Islam, I will say again, must be empowered to counter the radical elements of the religion.
Anyway, there are volumes and volumes of thought in this subject. Way too much to get into with anything approaching a satisfactory answer. Not when I have brownies to eat...I take it you have a problem with suicide bombers, as distinct from other types of bombings and terrorism such as car bombs.
I probably can't come up with any Catholic suicide bombers as the Catholics would prefer just to bomb innocent people without taking their own life. But of course they wouldn't be real Christians would they!
Remember the pro - Catholic IRA in Northern Ireland and the dispute between the Catholics and the Protestants.
Good point but the IRA types I've listened to and spoke with were into "Liberation theology" marxists.
Best,
Zak
I totally agree, but at the same time we mustn't interfere to the point of resentment towards us and undoing any good we may have achieved. There is a fine line between empowering people and dictating to them.
I totally agree that most rational Christians would not think they were going to heaven if they were suicide bombers, as suicide is said to be a mortal sin in many Christian doctrines. But, does it matter whether they think they are going to heaven at that moment, for an action which may kill innocent people. As far as Christianity is concerned, heaven comes later after death, whenever that maybe. In my mind, all that matters is that they think they are doing the work for God - or for the right cause - and God has endorsed that cause. I am sure that scenario would play out quite often.
GW Bush believes that the Christian God has endorsed the war in Iraq. He sends Christian soldiers over to Iraq and innocent people do get killed. Not all were intentionally killed, but some kills have been intentional just by the very nature of the fighting and some have been intentional, period.
A Christian soldier who believes that what he is doing is the right thing by his God will assume that he will go to heaven for his actions, even if those actions may have caused the deaths of innocent civilians. However, he may ask forgiveness from his God for any wrong-doing. But, he still has killed innocent people - possibly intentionally - and as long as he thinks that his Christian God has endorsed his actions, he believes he will go to heaven.
I like you could say a lot more but this could go on forever. Enjoy your brownies.
Political separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of Ireland did not come until the early 20th century, when Protestants and Catholics divided into two warring camps over the issue of Irish home rule. Most Irish Catholics desired complete independence from Britain, but Irish Protestants feared living in a country ruled by a Catholic majority. (The Northern Irish Conflict)
Your comment above is like comparing the actions of a man who breaks into someone's house and commits murder against the wife who lives there, and her husband who takes a gun and shoots that murderer. The first man's actions are to be condemned regardless of motivation, and the second man's actions are justified even though the results of his actions were the same, death. You can't compare the two.
Scio - I know this is off topic again, but I just had to reply to this comment.
Islam has an effective method of avoiding self-criticism. Anyone who criticizes Islam is not an apostate. It's most likely alright to behead them.
Well Lexann I actually gave you a link which gave an example of some moderate Muslims, but you obviously chose not to look i.e. you don't listen to what I say. Also Vox has moderate Muslims too.
So you would like to see some moderate Muslims, okay I am happy to oblige. I hope you may actually take the time to have a look. The list of course is endless, but surely this will be enough to open your mind just a little bit.
Muslims Against Sharia
http://www.iheu.org/node/1172
http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=BaranZeyno
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol_baran200603010816.asp
http://www.iheu.org/node/1172
http://www.bmsd.org.uk/
http://www.islamicpluralism.org/
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org
http://www.tawfikhamid.com/
http://www.aifdemocracy.org
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/JamalHasan.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/JamalHasan.htm
http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=Kazimi
http://www.irshadmanji.com/
http://www.amislam.com
http://www.secularislam.org
http://www.benadorassociates.com/taheri.php
Yeh Hum Naheen
Apparently according to Scio Scio, The point of the article was to demonstrate the superior bravery of the film and its makers to those who simply put stickers on their car.” I guess that makes sense given the title of the article is, “Courage without consequence.” The title of the post is titled, “Bigotry and the Common Blog.” The bigotry apparently is directed at Christians and the inference is that it is an acceptable bigotry and not a very brave bigotry. Muslims can get away with terrible crimes through their scare tactics and liberals/progressives are afraid to condemn Muslims for their terrible actions, instead they prefer to take the less courageous route and just condemn Christians by the use of bumper stickers.
Note this apparently was not really an attack on liberals/progressives and so a liberal shouldn’t take offence. Therefore if a liberal challenges this part of the article or challenges another comment for showing a hint of liberal bashing that is going off topic.
So if there was not an attack on liberals/progressives then who are these people who apparently put these stickers on their cars with little courage. Well the article tells us who these people are, they are secular progressives. Did the author just casually mention these progressives in passing leaving the main argument of the piece to the bravery of the film? Well hardly and once again by the author’s own admission this was not the case, “Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.” Yes the author has a lot of concern for the Jesus Fish. I could do a word count and see just how concerned Goldberg is about progressives and the Jesus Fish/Darwin Fish, however a very good estimate would be about half of the article. However, in reality the article is basically nothing but a liberal/progressive bashing piece. If the article was just about Fitna and the issue of radical Islam, then there would be no mention of progressives or the Jesus Fish.
So I actually think I had every right to raise the issue of liberal/progressive bashing, when in fact this is what the article is. Anyway I will try and stick to the topic and go through this article for what it is.
Initially Goldberg does mention the film Fitna and he needs to so that he can get his real message across. Yes he describes the film Fitna very accurately. Then he accurately does indicate that part of the Muslim world is not happy about the film. To be honest given the one sidedness of the film I don’t blame Muslims for being unhappy, however I do not condone any violence that may come from the airing of this film. I also understand why sometimes some Christians may be upset by some of the documentaries about Christianity, as some of them can be rather one sided. To a modern Christian’s credit, although they get upset, they generally do not become violent in response to criticism, however atheist authors and commentators can receive an enormous amount of hate mail from Christians, which can include death threats. If similar criticism was levelled at Christianity several hundred years ago, then there would have been very violent outbursts and atheists would absolutely fear for their life, not just from the odd Christian, but also from the Christian church itself. I am not actually criticising the Christian church with this comment, as it is a fact of the past and the world back then was less civilised and less knowledgeable. Unfortunately, some areas of the Muslim world have not yet advanced in this respect and that is one of the problems we are facing, but not the entire Muslim world reacts with violence and that is the issue I have with Fitna, as it does not demonstrate this fact and instead demonises the entire Muslim world. So I will leave Fitna for the moment, as it is now time for Goldberg to move on from Fitna and move onto the Jesus Fish, which he admits he keeps thinking about.
He now devotes half of the article to the Jesus Fish. He explains how he finds the Darwin Fish offensive and apparently the whole point of the Darwin fish is a display of intolerance to Christianity. The makers of the Darwin fish describe the intention of the Darwin Fish as follows: “The various designs are intended to promote Darwinism, and to show the owner believes in evolution rather than creation.” So just may be no offence was really intended by those who use the bumper sticker and if some offence was intended, I would hazard a guess there is an understandable reason for the Darwin Fish. I personally have never seen the Darwin Fish in Australia and that does not mean it doesn’t exist here, although after doing an Australian Google search for “Darwin Fish”, I did not find an Australian seller and the top search results were in fact fishing trips to the Australian city of Darwin. However, I have seen the Jesus fish on Australian cars.
So why would people feel the need to sport the Darwin Fish, well in my opinion I think the answer is very simple and it explains why the sticker is more popular in the US, than in Australia. In Australia there is no huge debate about teaching creationism in the science class, as evolution is considered a science and therefore it is taught in the science class without any debate and creationism is not. As we know this is not the case in the US, there is frequent debate and a secular progressive would be against teaching a non-science subject in the science class, so the Darwin Fish is simply a mild protest against what they would consider to be the continual interference of Christianity in the science class. It sounds rather fair to me, given that a certain section of the US Christian community continually want to interfere in the science class when it comes to the teaching of evolution, so why shouldn’t secular progressives have a bit of a dig back at those Christians, given it was Christians who started the interference in the first place. So I disagree with Goldberg on the motives of secular progressives when they sport the Darwin Fish, if Goldberg’s interpretation is, “First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.” then I think Goldberg is feeling rather insecure and should get over it and in my opinion it is not a form of bigotry, just a bit of evening up the score.
With this sentence Goldberg goes on to indicate very clearly what his article is about, “But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.” Yes apparently secular progressives lack courage as there are no consequences to their cheap show of courage. There we have it, Goldberg’s cheap shot at secular progressives, well done Goldberg for being so brave.
Finally Goldberg comes back to the subject of Fitna, he says “Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.” Which is true, it isn’t a Darwin Fish, as the Darwin Fish was never intended to upset the Christian population to the extent Fitna was designed to upset the Muslim population, also the Darwin Fish does not demonise Christianity the way Fitna demonises the entire Muslim population.
Goldberg is correct there is a worrying trend of violence emerging from some Muslim groups and it is a problem the world will need to take notice of and not tolerate. But is it wrong to place every Muslim amongst that group.
Goldberg doesn’t stay too long with the subject of Fitna and radical Islam as he has bigger fish to fry, yes once again Goldberg heads back to the secular progressives and insinuates their cowardice at being scornful towards the Christians who he says are neither fanatical nor violent.
One thing is for certain, Goldberg is incorrect when he says Christians are never fanatical nor violent. Please don’t use the, “But they are not REAL Christians” excuse as I am afraid you are in denial if you believe that to be so. They may be misguided Christians, but if they say they are Christians and/or they are acting because they believe it is the Christian thing to do, then they are Christians and just like Muslims you need to accept that part of your flock will let you down. That is why there is the concept of sin and forgiveness and why Jesus died on the cross – Christians aren’t perfect they sin! But it is okay, everyone does bad stuff, we are humans, that is life. Get over it.
So I would say on the whole this is just another piece of progressive bashing.
I would like to have a bit to say in defence of secular progressives in the United States of America. As an outsider looking in, it seems that to be anything but a Christian is not without its draw backs. Only a very much proclaimed Christian will have any hope of becoming the president of the United States, not even an atheist has a chance at the top job, let alone a Muslim. Atheists have been discriminated against in the armed service. A teenage girl had to leave her school due to intense victimisation after she decided not to take part in her basketball team’s pre-match recital of the Lord’s Prayer. An atheist just the other day was verbally abused for his religious unbelief by Rep. Monique Davis during his testimony to the House State Government Administration Committee. I have a feeling that just may be it is easier to be a Christian in the US than it is to be any other religion or non-religion, so may be it does take more courage to be a secular progressive than Goldberg portrays.
I would just like to mention the radical Islam issue. If the US really has an issue with radical Islam, then it is time it cuts its ties with possibly the worst country when it comes to radical Islam. Saudi Arabia has one of the and possibly the harshest forms of Islam in the world, that being Wahhabism. It is this form of Islam that has been infiltrating some of the mosques in Europe and possibly many other Western countries including the US. Many of the clerics filmed in Fitna were trained in Wahhabism. It is hypocritical for the US to embrace the very country and government that is financing the propagation of Wahhabism throughout the world.
So that is my comment, please feel free to pick it to pieces as I won’t be back to this post again. Thanks for the lesson in hypocrisy. I now know that a REAL Christian can do no wrong and if one does then he/she will be rejected by Christianity. I have been told what a REAL Christian is, only to discover that it is all talk. REAL Christians make generalisations about people and love to judge them accordingly without any basis. Progressives are not REAL Christians and deserve to be continually condemned by REAL Christians who as it turns out are conservatives.
That was a super long comment. You should make a post from it or something.
No, but there are other examples, such as Jesus Camp and Hell House, that do tar with a rather broad brush.
As the interesting video on your blog shows.
This is true; look at the libelous emails floating around about Obama's supposed affiliations.
John
Cheers,
Cheryl
Oh the article did make me think, that is for sure.
Alright this will be off topic - sorry. Actually in a sense it is not off topic given you own dialogue at the start of this post.
I am actually totally for open debate and I have learnt a lot from doing so here at Vox. Unfortunately I do get a bit annoyed when I try to have an open debate or I visit many blogs and all I see is liberal/progressive bashing and most of it is totally without grounds or there are people making sweeping generalisations based purely on perceived political outlooks. I know the reverse happens too and there is conservative bashing, but I really try to stay out of it, not always successfully but I do at least try.
It really bugs me when I visit a conservative Christian blog and it is full of liberal bashing and I just find it so unbecoming of a Christian that it really puts me off (not having a go at you in that comment by the way, this article is mild compared to a lot of the stuff around and although I don’t agree with it, I can handle it). I have been a Christian virtually all of my life and I have only just (last few weeks) decided not to belong to an organised religion, as it is just not for me. I actually haven't got anything against people who are part of a religion, that is their choice and as long as people respect my choice then I am happy. So I am all for the positive aspects of Christianity and I want to make that clear, just in case anyone here thought I was a Christian basher. In fact I will be holding onto what I consider good Christian values.
One issue I found in this thread is a feeling that Christianity is above criticism and Islam is not. It is as if there is a taboo on admitting that some times Christians do bad things, and I don't understand what the big deal is admitting that. To just dismiss people as not REAL Christians when they do bad things in the name of Christianity is just hypocritical and that is what actually turns many people away from religion, the utter hypocrisy.
This statement by Goldberg, "religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent", it is inaccurate and I don't understand why that is so difficult to see or admit. Not all Christians are fanatical or violent, but there are some who are and just that admission would have shown me that there could actually be some kind of open debate here, with give and take. But in all honestly in the main all I found here was as you put it, "The Wall". But I guess that is the problem with trying to comment on a blog with predominantly different views than my own, sounds like you at least understand that feeling.
"Political and religious leaders have skillfully exploited religious differences to manipulate, justify, inflame, divide or unite people, creating a culture of sectarian prejudice that either supports the existing power structure, or seeks reform, or reunification with Ireland."
Sounds like a familiar story.
Anyway that aside, I will make a comment about the comment you left above. Is part of your issue with Islam and its associated violence to do with Imams condoning and inciting violence and/or war? Given that in the Irish case you stated the violence was condemned by the church.
If this is the case, how do you feel about Christian spiritual figures condoning/endorsing a war or a military figure being given time in a Christian church in America to raise support for the war?
I will give you my opinion on this matter. My feeling about spiritual figures and war is that it is not their role to endorse a war and it is their role to condemn violence. I understand that there is a concept of a just war and an example of such a war would be say in the case of Australia fighting against the Japanese who were about to invade our country during WWII. I am undecided as to whether it is their role to endorse even a just war, may be in such a case they don't condemn the war.
In the main, I believe a spiritual leaders position when it comes to war is to speak out against an unjust war and during any war to lead his/her congregation in praying for all of the people caught up in the war. To also be a support figure for those who suffer loss or trauma from the conflict.
As far as Military personnel being given time to raise support for a war in a church, I think that should be a no go zone and I am very firm on that position.
The terms preachy and self-righteous come to mind, too.
Thanks for the links though. I did view a few of them (NO, not ALL of them...) and it is reassuring to see so many Islamic groups out there that consider the actions of their middle-Eastern kindred outrageous. Although, I still have to refer back to the article by Ali, where he asks why are these groups not more vocal in protest to these outrages? Perhaps it is because of what Scio said earlier: "The most vocal critics of Islam from within Islam are avowed apostates...Islam has an effective method of avoiding self-criticism. Anyone who criticizes Islam is an apostate. It's most likely alright to behead them."
Out of courtesy I am letting you know that I posed your question/thoughts to some people of the Islamic faith. If you are interested you may find their replies and many more thoughts on this post.
Thank you.
In my opinion I think it has been established that we did not end up in Iraq due to a factual link between 9/11 and Iraq.
As far as 9/11 is concerned, that was just a symptom of a much bigger problem, and the US is partly to blame for 9/11 by its actions in the Middle East, which span decades and have resulted in the direct or indirect deaths/morbidity of millions of people. It appears to many in the world that the life of an American is worth far more than an Arab/Muslim.
I struggle to see why a suicide bomber/ IED bomber (with little choice of weaponry) who intentionally kills or knowingly knows there maybe innocent casualties and is using these devices to try to get a foreign occupying force out of his country, is that much worse than an American soldier who has a multitude of weapons at his disposal and instead of choosing a weapon which will cause less damage to civilian life, decides to choose a method which will cause greater loss of innocent civilian life.
Sometimes the choice is made to make a point to many not to harbour insurgents, sometimes because the soldier is just too lazy to take the method which will be more time consuming but result in less loss of innocent life, sometimes the act is out of revenge and frustration at having lost a member of his platoon and sometimes there is no choice. Either way does it matter to a mother who just lost her child as to how it happened. I do not blame the American soldier in most circumstances, I blame the people higher up the chain for putting them in the position they are currently in.
I do believe it is similar to a man who breaks into someone's house and commits murder against the wife, because when it comes to Iraq we should not have been there in the first place. However in the case of Iraq it is not necessarily the person who commits the murder fault, it is more likely to be some one further up the chain of command, right up to the very top.
I know I did come across as preachy and self righteous, that is a problem I have when I am totally frustrated by needless death. So I will cop that criticism on the chin as it was deserved. I am sure we will not agree on what I have just said, but I just wanted to make what I said a bit clearer and also to apologise for coming across so harshly.
To say that the US is partly to blame for the actions of terrorists is foolish. First, it makes you look like an idiot to your American audience and we are less inclined to listen to you. Secondly, it ignores the fundamental principles of foreign policy that govern our relations. A country can and MUST pursue its own interests or it will fail. The US is in a position to pursue its interests in the Middle East, and there is no legal way for them to halt our efforts. So they turn to terrorism, which the world condemns.
You are assuming that is what happens. Our military makes every reasonable effort to minimize collateral damage. If we were indiscriminately killing civilians we wouldn't last long, anywhere. It's bad soldiering. You don't kill the people who aren't fighting you, because then they'll fight you. Accidents happen, but they are accidents.
I was off topic in a number of cases because I actually was responding to some comments that were "off topic". Yes I did go off topic by my own account a number of times; however I believe I do have a right to respond to topics directed at me which were off topic. That is a right you gave to other people on this thread without question, when they said they were going off topic to reply to me. I did not bring up suicide bombers, but I replied to a comment directed towards me in that regards and then the thread progressed from there.
Scio I actually don't care what Americans think of me and as far as them listening to me, I think I can safely assume that virtually anything I say on your blog will not be listened to by your regular audience anyway.
However I will add there are many Americans who believe that US actions were partly to blame for the events of 9/11. As you know Americans are not the only ones who have been affected by terrorist attacks and even some Australians who were injured in the attacks in the UK and Bali, have queried the actions of the West and whether our own actions have contributed to the hostilities.
I was under the belief that we as individuals and as nations needed to take responsibility for our actions. When things go wrong there should be self reflection.
I am glad you didn't indicate that in all cases of America pursuing its interests that they have been legal and moral.
You are right in many cases there is no legal way for them to halt America's interests and they do turn to terrorism and the world does condemn them.
No legal way because sometimes America thwarts efforts to obtain legal ways of halting both America's interests and the Israeli interests which are all intertwined.
The US continues to block resolutions the UN has tried to impose on Israel i.e. there is no legal way to stop them. So if there is no legal way to stop them, what is say a Palestinian supposed to do to try and get change. The Palestinians for example are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Anyway it is okay I got the message loud and clear, America can do no wrong and never does anything wrong in regards to any actions it conducts or permits. Strange that it has that status, because every other country can and does do wrong sometimes, even my own. I guess God truly has blessed America.