Richards 0
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
He should be guided by his own conscience as to whether to apologize for saying something that could be interpreted incorrectly, and I think he was. Reasonable people can read his apology and accept it if they choose. Those hotheads don't care what he said to begin with; they would hate him anyway. They don't care what sort of apology he gives either, other than how to use it to their advantage.
Agreed.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
[replyRight. And one of OUR extremist clerics has called for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated. There are nuts on all sides.
yes, but when his followers stood up to answer his call, half of them fell and broke their hips and the other half forgot why they stood up. you really can't compare pat robertson to muslim extremists.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
billvon 3,033
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>you really can't compare pat robertson to muslim extremists.
Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents to Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads. Since he sets much of the tone for the religious right's political stances, and the right is currently in control of our nuclear weapons, he is considerably more powerful than a crazy imam with a few pounds of C-4 and an AK-47.
Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents to Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads. Since he sets much of the tone for the religious right's political stances, and the right is currently in control of our nuclear weapons, he is considerably more powerful than a crazy imam with a few pounds of C-4 and an AK-47.
Dolph 0
Bill,
you often equate home grown fundamentalists to, say, Muslim terrorists.
Whil I agree with you in principle (that, given equal opportunities/enviironment, they'd probably react in the same manner, i.e terrorizing the population, killings, abductions), there are a number of factors that make a comparison with other extremist organisations a comparison of apples and oranges.
The level of education, US compared to say Middle Eastern nation. Level of poverty. Level of freedom. Level of rule of law. Social factors, such as tribe oriented societies vs. more open ended US style. And so on. All these factors make a comparison very difficult - but it is a poignant reminder that we got the same at home running on a toned down scale due to the circumstances.
We'vehad and have domestic terrorism in Europe - ETA, IRA and so forth, but it really hasn't been exported with any great success. Some rather primitive AK-47 wielding dudes had stunning success in the US though.
It's also a bit disingenuous to say "Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents of Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads". Here, you are comparing a fringe minority (muslim extremists) with a majority (Christians, since that is Pat's religion). Would be more fair if you either compared followers of Islam with followers of Christ or even better, followers of extremist muslims with followers of extremist Christians.
When comparing terrorism or acts of terrorism, or sectarian violence today, it is clear that there's more in one loosely defined group than in another. While it is certain that much of it has to do with other things than religion (such as a secular power grab, allegiance to tribe and so forth) I think it is important not to underestimate the power of religion, either as a motivational factor or as an excuse.
you often equate home grown fundamentalists to, say, Muslim terrorists.
Whil I agree with you in principle (that, given equal opportunities/enviironment, they'd probably react in the same manner, i.e terrorizing the population, killings, abductions), there are a number of factors that make a comparison with other extremist organisations a comparison of apples and oranges.
The level of education, US compared to say Middle Eastern nation. Level of poverty. Level of freedom. Level of rule of law. Social factors, such as tribe oriented societies vs. more open ended US style. And so on. All these factors make a comparison very difficult - but it is a poignant reminder that we got the same at home running on a toned down scale due to the circumstances.
We'vehad and have domestic terrorism in Europe - ETA, IRA and so forth, but it really hasn't been exported with any great success. Some rather primitive AK-47 wielding dudes had stunning success in the US though.
It's also a bit disingenuous to say "Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents of Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads". Here, you are comparing a fringe minority (muslim extremists) with a majority (Christians, since that is Pat's religion). Would be more fair if you either compared followers of Islam with followers of Christ or even better, followers of extremist muslims with followers of extremist Christians.
When comparing terrorism or acts of terrorism, or sectarian violence today, it is clear that there's more in one loosely defined group than in another. While it is certain that much of it has to do with other things than religion (such as a secular power grab, allegiance to tribe and so forth) I think it is important not to underestimate the power of religion, either as a motivational factor or as an excuse.
Skyrad 0
>one in London calling on Capital Punishment for those that criticize Islam.
Right. And one of OUR extremist clerics has called for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated. There are nuts on all sides.
But I don't think the pope should be deciding what to do based on what nuts think or don't think. I would think (hope, actually) that he gets his guidance on what to say and do from a higher authority than that.
And the tie in is that here in London our Mayor Ken Livingstone is going to start trading with Hugo Chavez he'll give us Londoners oil for our busses and in return Ken will send experts in all areas over there to help Hugo Chavez build up his country. Also it will be advertised as a holliday destination. (I'm not kidding)
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
>you really can't compare pat robertson to muslim extremists.
Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents to Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads. Since he sets much of the tone for the religious right's political stances, and the right is currently in control of our nuclear weapons, he is considerably more powerful than a crazy imam with a few pounds of C-4 and an AK-47.
Pretty soon, a a lot sooner than you think, the radical imams in Iran will have those nuclear bombs as well.
But getting back to the Pat Robertson analogy, when he said that about killing Chavez, the response among fellow Christians was loud and clear in condemning him. Even Fox News made sure those condemnations were registered. Take a look at http://www.aljazeera.com and see how many condemnations you can find of the Muslim violence in response to being called violent. You can't even find a mention of the poor nun who was killed in Somalia. It's shameful.
Gawain 0
Right. And one of OUR extremist clerics has called for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated. There are nuts on all sides.
First, Christian based religions do not have "clerics" per se.
Second, the evangelist who said that later retracted and fully apologized for his comments.
Third, even when he said it, he was not amassing a huge crowd, inciting a riot, the burning of flags, or burning of people in effigy.
I'm not saying he was wrong, I am saying your comparison is tenuous, at best. At worst, it doesn't even amount to "apples-to-oranges".
I would think (hope, actually) that he gets his guidance on what to say and do from a higher authority than that.
Interestingly, I was watching one of the news channels and thought was conveyed that perhaps the Pope hasn't fully assimilated himself into the political role his position plays, versus his educational role his previous office held.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
mnealtx 0
>you really can't compare pat robertson to muslim extremists.
Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents to Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads. Since he sets much of the tone for the religious right's political stances, and the right is currently in control of our nuclear weapons, he is considerably more powerful than a crazy imam with a few pounds of C-4 and an AK-47.
[sarcasm] Oh, of course... which is why there's a glowing glass crater in the middle of Caracas... [/sarcasm]
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Andy9o8 2
perhaps the Pope hasn't fully assimilated himself into the political role his position plays, versus his educational role his previous office held.
Exactly - that's the point I was making above. He's basically the clerical equivalent of a nerdy little college professor, sans the mid-life crisis. This pope really is less of an heirarchical politician than many other popes have been; he's been more of an apparatchik. I think this is a classic example of an executive who was let down by his senior staff, and stepped in it as a result. He really should take them back to the woodshed for a good ass-kicking.
The Pope has said:
"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he said five days later. "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."
----
It was clear from the context of the speech that the Pope was quoting someone else from the 14th century, but he had to explain it again 5 days later.
WTF do people want???
"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he said five days later. "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."
----
It was clear from the context of the speech that the Pope was quoting someone else from the 14th century, but he had to explain it again 5 days later.
WTF do people want??? Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites