Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
This is what I said in real life:

I've snarkily remarked that "progressive" is what we called ourselves when it became dangerous to be liberals, "liberal" is what we called ourselves when it became dangerous to be socialists, "socialist" is what we called ourselves when it became dangerous to be Communists, etc...

But to be clear, most Americans who are openly "progressive" would never ever think of themselves as Communists.


"Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
by poemless on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 04:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought (my thought only) that my paraphrasing you which was not a quote but picking up on your idea which wasn't text from the dictionary or a scientific journal, but a thought that you had or had picked up somewhere (I don't remember exactly), an inspiring thought!, was okay.
BTW, when I 'misquote' "... had originally been communists", it is already clear that the different labels and their change, even if you had provided that text with citations, must have occurred over a long period of time so that you were probably not born, yet, when anybody would have considered it acceptable to come out as a communist (something along these lines).

I may have written too much in a short period of time and didn't pay all that much attention, couldn't find your quote in those 300+ comments and didn't want to go over it for three times.

To give you peace of mind, I will avoid quoting or paraphrasing you in the future, okay?

At any rate, from Monday on, I will have to cut back again drastically on writing here. No choice.

Why do I have to prove incessantly that I write in good faith?

BTW, when I summed up my diary, I came across a rather lengthy reply from you to one of my comments that I had missed before and I then replied to tell you that I had missed it. You may have missed that.

 

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 05:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lily:
Why do I have to prove incessantly that I write in good faith?

you don't have to prove a thing, only you can know for sure anyway.

your diaries have pushed some great buttons, i've thought about ET in a new way, as i do after any of these meta excursions.

i think the ET of the future should be famous for its broadmindedness, an example of how quality thinking can breed with itself and reproduce. i'd like to see molecular biologists, bishops, marine biologists, trades union members, coal miners and cosmologists, jesuits and jurisprudence experts, as wide as tent as good writing will shelter and unite.

where anything could be discussed without fear of offending anyone, because respect and good faith would be the baseline, and trolls ignored or re-educated to see how they could be contributing better quality.

ET could be a Way, in a taoist sense, meaning it evolves naturally, and models a wise and imaginatively respectful relationship with our environment, starting with one another. our opinions are only part of who we are, and can happily be altered when exposed.

i also really enjoy diaries that are from outside europe (though i know others would like to see more focus on our issues), because i never want to forget that we are never separate from the rest of the world.

europe may be where most of us are speaking from, but i hope we'll continue to cast our gaze ever wider.

scale 'er up, baby!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 10:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Americans who are openly "progressive" would never ever think of themselves as Communists.

A) Unless they're drunk.

B) BTW, This sounds as if they still feared being hunted down.

(I hope I don't have to apologise for this now.)

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Sat May 30th, 2009 at 05:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lily:
B) BTW, This sounds as if they still feared being hunted down.

Actually:

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US abortion doctor is shot dead

A prominent US abortion doctor has been shot dead at a church in the city of Wichita, Kansas.

Sixty-seven year-old George Tiller was killed just after 1000 (1500 GMT) at the Reformation Lutheran Church.

The gunman, described as a white man, fled in a car, but officials say a suspect is now in custody.

Dr Tiller, one of the few US doctors who performed so-called late-term abortions, had been vilified by anti-abortionists in the US.

His clinic - called Women's Health Care Services - had often been the site of demonstrations, and he had been shot and wounded by an assailant 16 years ago.

Also, this kind of thing, which is really not hard to find:

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 07:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is one happy shortcut. Is it your conclusion that US lefties should be afraid of declaring themselves as such?  Was Tiller shot at because he was a liberal, or because he performed late-term abortions?

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 08:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you implying that the latter would, could or should make liberals feel safer?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 05:02:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The killing was a random act. Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. Maybe emotions run higher on the conservative side towards liberals, precisely wrt pro-choice.

Under a liberal government, liberals don't have to fear systematic prosecution. I have strong doubts, though that the same can be said about dissenting "anti-American" views in general and across the board.
 

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 04:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The killing was a random act.

Bull. Shit. It was no more random than the murders of Malcom X or Martin Luther King. If you think that this doesn't have any connection to the organised American fascist movement, then you are seriously in denial about the nature of American right wing politics.

Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum.

Bull. Shit. When was the last time someone shot a moderate conservative in the US? For that matter, when was the last time someone shot a fascist vermin like Rush Limbaugh?

The political violence is exclusively on one side of the political spectrum on that side of the Pond.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 05:06:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Random act - in the sense of not backed by the government, neither secretly nor openly. We can talk again once we learn more about the suspect in custody.

Hate - isn't necessarily expressed through acts of physical violence. Political violence includes everything from accusatory or aggressive speach (ehm, hmm..) to murder.

Political violence exclusively on one side of the political spectrum on that side of the pond - Does that mean no drones to Afghanistan? Swords to ploughshears?

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 05:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Random act - in the sense of not backed by the government, neither secretly nor openly.

Neither was the Biergarten Putsch.

Hate - isn't necessarily expressed through acts of physical violence. Political violence includes everything from accusatory or aggressive speach (ehm, hmm..) to murder.

Wow.

Just wow.

Did you just claim that demanding prosecution of war criminals and calling Rush Limbaugh an animal beneath contempt is the moral and political equivalent of political assassinations?

I do believe you did. Please tell me that I'm wrong.

Political violence exclusively on one side of the political spectrum on that side of the pond - Does that mean no drones to Afghanistan? Swords to ploughshears?

OK, make that violence directed at domestic political opponents. Colonial wars is a bipartisan enterprise.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 05:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you just claim that demanding prosecution of war criminals and calling Rush Limbaugh an animal beneath contempt is the moral and political equivalent of political assassinations?

I do believe you did. Please tell me that I'm wrong.

I'm surprised. My trains of thought differ greatly from yours.

I "claimed" if one can call it such that hatred knows different expressions.
(Erotic) love comes along with soft whispered words, kisses, gifts, love letters, sex, kids, holding hands, crises, reconciliation, etc. It's a huge spectrum within one attitude.

Calling Rush Limbaugh an animal beneath contempt doesn't do anything to him, I guess. You could likewise ignore him. Now, is it the same as murder? "Only" in the way in which to think of having sex with someone differs from actually having it. And saying it out loud without going there can still lead to break-ups.

I can sit in the corner of a room and say, "I like my friend Babidou so much!". Maybe Babidou will receive the telepathic message. That's unlikely. But I will feel good.
Limbaugh won't hear you but you sit there, filled with anger.

Real change happens from the bottom up, inside out, for the better, or for the worse.

PS: To demand that war criminals be prosecuted is different: You can do so in an effort to keep them behind closed bars etc. Such demand isn't violent. The challenge lies in the implementation.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 06:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you did actually make that moral equivalence.

Interesting.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 06:50:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For that matter, it's also interesting that you'd claim that the American communists were "discredited," when in point of fact they were purged.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 06:52:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would I have played down what is a fact of history? Cross out "discredited", call it purged, haunted down or any other synonym that fits.
by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 07:58:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, I consider this remark unnecessary and 'trollish'.
by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 08:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This country, and most of the world, have never let the Muslims get away with the "those people that do those atrocious acts are not following what the Qur'an preaches" line. We call them Islamic terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, Muslim terrorists, whatever. The official and unofficial news media casually name-checks their religion thousands of times every day.

These things ingrain in people's minds, y'know. Which is why this whole Muslim = Evil meme has taken hold so pervasively.

We can hold their religion "accountable". So why not make sure you're out of the glass house before you do something about that stone-throwing itch?

"Accountability" never hurt anyone who is trying to make themselves better.

I do understand that this heinous act hurts your decent religious self and I do recognize that you are on the side of what is right and I do apologize to you, in advance, for sounding maybe a bit too harsh than what I really am...

... But in return, I want you to call it for what it is. ....

This is an act of "Christian terrorism", and by extension, it was carried out by "a Christian". Whether anyone is proud of it or not.

link


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 05:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome,

Murder does not belong to Christian ideology, only its condemnation.

This guy, who goes to church, the same as Dr. Tiller, presumably considered the latter was a murderer (of unborn babies). If we go into why and whether he should look at it that way, we'll never end here.

It is clear, however, that there is no Christian belief that would justify Dr. Tiller's murder.

Now, it is possible, maybe even probable that there are fanatics who are out of touch about what "respect for life" really means while they try to defend it and who will then resort to such acts of violence.
In that sense, you can call them Christian terrorists in analogy to Muslim terrorists.

It is a far stretch, however, to "hold their religion accountable". Their religion, in this case Christianity, is not accountable.

If anyone wants to hold Christianity as a whole accountable, it's just another 'eye for an eye' because Islam as a whole gets blame for Muslim terrorist acts which I don't condone, either.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 05:47:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lily:
Murder does not belong to Christian ideology, only its condemnation.

Has this ever been true in practice?

I don't want to labour this point because it would be like kicking a puppy out of a window. But surely Christianity's historical record doesn't quite support the idea that it's primarily a peaceful religion dedicated to non-violence.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 09:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Don't listen to what people say. Look at what they do."

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 09:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again, you can say the same about Islam, and maybe you do.

When you have crusades in the name of institutionalised religion, and there is murder, the religious body is to be held accountable. I agree.

Now, when and where has anybody within the different branches of Christianity and within the US called to open arms and kill in order to fight abortion?

As I said, you cannot hold Christianity accountable for the acts of a few, one in this case, who make up their own rules in the name of religion.

Or, you can choose to do so but how is that scientific or fact-based?

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 10:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Everyone makes up their own rules wrt religion. That's why Christianity doesn't offer a useful moral compass - anyone can persuade themselves that they're acting in god's name, and use that argument to support any action.

As for facts -

Violence at US Abortion Clinics

One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings." 1

Many pro-choice individuals and groups blame these criminal acts on the most violent extremists in the pro-life movement. Some believe that the violent rhetoric heard from pro-lifers motivates the more radical pro-life fringe to resort to violence.
Many pro-life individuals and groups blame the violence on groups which are quite separate from the pro-life movement -- people who have little regard for human life.

It's worth reading the rest for some interesting statistics. Anti-abortion violence has been far from rare in the US.

Of course pro-life people distance themselves formally. However - inflammatory anti-abortion rhetoric is dispersed by both the Catholic and protestant churches in the US. E.g.

Rhetoric, repetition, and violence: A case study of clinic conflict in Milwaukee | College Literature | Find Articles at BNET

In addition to having organizational links to the national leaders of the antiabortion movement, Milwaukee's activists situate themselves within the rhetorical and organizational context of a broader, nationwide conservative movement. One force that links Milwaukee's antiabortion activists to this larger movement is VCY/America, a Christian radio and television network. VCY has stations in Wisconsin, Kansas, and South Dakota, and broadcasts its programs nationwide. Theologically, the network's positions are consistent with a growing movement known as Christian Reconstructionism. Reconstructionists seek to establish a theocracy run according to Old Testament law. In this society, the nuclear family would be the central unit, women would be subservient to men, and capital punishment would be the penalty for numerous crimes including homosexuality, adultery, heresy, and striking a parent (Blanchard and Prewitt 1993, 243-45; Clarkson 1997, 77-96). Consistent with this agenda, VCY programming combines support for state enforcement of "God's Word" with a desire for minimal government involvement within "Christian families." Typical programming on VCY voices strong opposition to assisted suicide, gay rights, birth control, and gun regulation, stressing the importance of parents' rights, home-schooling, and grass-roots political involvement. Abortion is discussed on nearly every program; many of Milwaukee's antiabortion activists make regular appearances. Thus, VCY acts as an important tool for framing and disseminating antiabortion rhetoric in Milwaukee, linking it to a larger right-wing agenda.

THE RHETORIC OF THE ANTIABORTION MOVEMENT

The rhetoric commonly used to discuss abortion on VCY, and in the antiabortion movement as a whole, is absolutist. This rhetoric insists that there is only one way of viewing abortion, and dismisses all opposing arguments as trivial. In her 1990 study, Condit identifies the use of such rhetoric as "overweighing." Using this strategy, she writes, speakers "attempt to show that the values and interests on their side [outweigh] those of the opposition" (1990, 159). By far the most important example of over-weighing in antiabortion rhetoric is the slogan of Operation Rescue: "If you think abortion is murder, act like it." This call to action has become a central tenet of the sidewalk "rescue" movement and has had enormous impact on the public abortion debate. Indeed, personhood of the fetus is a claim that typically goes unrefuted, even by individuals who identify themselves as pro-choice (Condit 1990, 82).

The slogan "abortion is murder" frames antiabortion discourse in two important and closely related ways. First, it articulates a defining equation: abortion equals murder. Second, it creates a closed system that eliminates competing definitions. According to this equation, abortion can be viewed as nothing but murder. The claim that the fetus is a person functions similarly, categorically excluding other definitions. Beneath Operation Rescue's moral imperative, then, lies an epistemological one-one must not only take action if one believes in the abortion/murder equation: one must accept the equation (indeed, there is no alternative to it), and then take action.

So you have a movement which is repetaedly told that abortion is murder, and which also supports the vindictive morality of the old testament.

The results aren't difficult to predict.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 10:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand that the American pro-life movement is quite complex. I have met "pro-lifers" in the US in the 90s, and they were very charming and peaceful people.

I assume that these people are still around. Nonetheless violent extremism is apparently growing.

I hadn't heard of "Christian Reconstructionism". Now, where's that even "Christian" since they aim at an Old Testament theocracy, including capital punishment, no gun control? I'd classify them as sectarian at best. That goes of course also for the "If you think abortion is murder, act like it." - I would only interpret it as another way to say, "Don't have one," but you think of other consequences.

These groups, unfortunately, have gone astray from Christian faith. Quite dramatic.

But then, there's this other question, should all Christians take the blame when there are some who cause trouble?
And also this: Do you believe the violence of one or that of a group justifies an equally violent or even more violent response?

Jerome's quote suggests it does... when the Christian religion as a whole is held accountable. - It's simple to blame the Christian religion but not justified.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 11:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand that the American pro-life movement is quite complex. I have met "pro-lifers" in the US in the 90s, and they were very charming and peaceful people.

I have also met quite pleasant anti-choice people. Europeans, not Americans, but I doubt that there is any ethnic difference in the capacity to be a nice person...

But that's beside the point. There are also nice orthodox Israelis. I'm sure you can even find a more or less civilised "settler" if you look hard enough. That does not detract from the fact that Israel has a fascist problem, and that their fascist problem is centred around their orthodox communities, in particular the "settler" communities.

I hadn't heard of "Christian Reconstructionism". Now, where's that even "Christian"

Who are you to say that they're not? They self-identify as Christian. They believe in the divinity of Jesus. Last time I checked, those are the two most common definitions of Christianity.

But then, there's this other question, should all Christians take the blame when there are some who cause trouble?

I am not quite sure where you got the idea that anybody is saying that.

What several of us are saying is that the US has a fascist problem. And that it's specifically centred around the fundagelical communities. Saying that their fascists are not "true Scotsmen Christians" is unhelpful.

And also this: Do you believe the violence of one or that of a group justifies an equally violent or even more violent response?

Not necessarily. But that's an academic point, because nobody is perpetrating violence on the American fascist movement to any significant extent.

Jerome's quote suggests it does... when the Christian religion as a whole is held accountable.

Only if you believe that terrorism justifies suspending common civility. Few people around these parts do.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 01:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First, comparing the American Pro Life Movement with Jewish settlements is comparing apples and oranges. You can sure try to mix categories to make your point.

I AGREE with you that the US has a problem. I don't fully agree on where it lies or that Christian evangelicals (alone?) are responsible for what you call American fascism. They, i.e. certain fundamentalists may have their share in this general sense of loss of freedom.

When I ask whether all Christians should take the blame (for the assassination/its causes), I can call it only pedantry when you ask me where I got that from. In Jerome's dkos link, one of the issues was the Christian religion's accountability. What is the Christian religion? The author didn't talk of bible burning. The Christian religion = its members = Christians. I hope you can follow the reasoning.

Enfin, Christian reconstructionism is NOT Christian. Sorry to disappoint. To call Jesus a divinity isn't quite sufficient to claim Christianity for oneself. Jesus made a new covenant that didn't exactly cancel out the old one but fulfilled it. A society based on Old Testament Law is under the old covenant. These people don't walk their talk, or rather don't walk their name. But then, I should at least quickly check them out on wikipedia before I'm going pass any final verdict on them/their ideology.    

I wonder whether you really want to find out what's going on in the US or whether you already know everything, and your opinion isn't subject to change anyway. Maybe it would be the easiest if you could outline your philosophy in a diary. It would safe valuable energy.

I'd like to end the Tiller debate here (at least my part in it).

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 03:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First, comparing the American Pro Life Movement with Jewish settlements is comparing apples and oranges.

But I didn't.

Upon re-reading the relevant paragraph, you will see that I was simply dispelling your argument from anecdote: That some member(s) of a group are nice and civil does not mean that the group is a constructive addition to society or that its agenda has any place in a civilised democracy.

They, i.e. certain fundamentalists may have their share in this general sense of loss of freedom.

"Certain fundamentalists" who "may have" a "share" in the "general sense" of loss of freedoms? In the same way that "certain factions" of the BNP "may have" a "share" in the "general sense" of increasing racism in Britain?

Of course the evangelicals are not alone in promoting authoritarian policies. But they are a major player on the American right-wing-extremist scene. Possibly the major player.

When I ask whether all Christians should take the blame (for the assassination/its causes),

No. But they must acknowledge this as an act of Christian terrorism (at least inasmuch as they acknowledge that "terrorism" is a meaningful term - I for one don't, but that's a different discussion). Claiming that "he isn't a (true) Christian" or that he is "an individual lunatic" obfuscates the fact that there exists a far-right Christian community that supports, encourages and breeds these kinds of terrorists.

You would never accept mealy-mouthed "but they weren't (real) communists" bullshit if the discussion was of the Baader-Meinhof gang. Or of Stalin's purges. Or of Castro's imprisonment of Cuban dissidents. Why does Christianity get to use a "get out of embarrassing terrorist groups free" card when communism doesn't?

Enfin, Christian reconstructionism is NOT Christian. Sorry to disappoint.

Again, who are you to say? Rushdoony, Schaeffer and Ahmanson (Schaeffer is also a leading light of the American anti-choice movement, by the way - very nice company they keep...) would in all probability say that you are not a Christian.

I wonder whether you really want to find out what's going on in the US or whether you already know everything, and your opinion isn't subject to change anyway.

I don't claim to know "everything" that's going on in the American far-right. But if you don't even know Rushdoony, Ahmanson, Scaife and Schaeffer (or Alcoa, Chiquita and ClearChannel, for that matter), then I do think that I know more than you do.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 08:19:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"the vindictive morality of the old testament"

The morality of the Old Testament is a fact ever since the colonisation of North America.

"which is repetaedly told that abortion is murder"

I suppose you mean to deny that there actually is a living creature in there, whose life is stopped during the procedure.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 03:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose you mean to deny that there actually is a living creature in there, whose life is stopped during the procedure.

Well Biologically and biblically it's debateable

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 04:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, what is debateable is whether it can be considered human being yet, or not. The quality of being alive and kicking :) is not.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 08:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, before the foetus is viable, the question is whether it should can be considered a parasite or not?

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 04:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is this supposed to be provocative ? I didn't mention viability here. Until then, your speaking of parasites lies in the same category as JakeS's chicken egg-sterilization post. I'd really like the opinion of a few bloggers having experienced motherhood on this kind of language, because to me it is of the exact same fascist type as those instigating to the murder of abortion doctors.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 10:08:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pretending to take the high ground could be unwise - especially if you total the long, long list of dead bodies in the old testament.

Don't make me quote Exodus 11:5 - I'm really not in the mood for that kind of silliness.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 04:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just stating a historical fact. No higher ground taking. Yet another assumption of bad faith....

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 08:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh? Where?

You're saying old testament violence began with the American Revolution?

What?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 03:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you misunderstood me, or maybe I didn't express clearly. I meant to say that America has been practically built on this kind of old testament morals, hence it's no surprise it's still there.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 10:09:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on which America you're talking about. The original colonists were indeed religious nuts. But the framers of the CONUS were building an explicitly secular state. If you want to convince yourself of that, try to see how many of the 10 Commandments it would be outright unconstitutional to enforce by law. (Hint: It's more than five.)

The US is a big place with a long(ish) history.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 04:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose you mean to deny that there actually is a living creature in there, whose life is stopped during the procedure.

That is also true for slaughtering a pig or sterilising a chicken egg. Doesn't make either of those murder.

Sorry, no points. Please try again.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 05:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
also end this sub-thread, please, guys!

Jerome is debating the "terrorist" on the front page...
As I said above, it had been an issue that religion in the political debate was undesired at ET, well, that was before this murder made the headlines.

It has become clear that religion cannot be excluded from the political debate on ET.

It would be possible, if no political affairs within religious contexts were ever debated at ET.

 

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 06:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
heh, wasn't it you who said that conflict was interesting?

it's fascinating seeing how much education there is in the argument, bringing the best out of folks' reasoning.

it's as lovely as hearing a guitar being tuned.

exploring dissonance and then twisting the pegs...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 09:51:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Religion as a justification for public policy has no place in rational discourse.

Religion as a social phenomenon is clearly important and should be analysed, deconstructed and understood.

Arguing that abortion is wrong because your religious text says so is an example of the former. Noting that the American fascist movement congregates around a number of extremist Calvinist churches is an example of the latter.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 04:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series