Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Wow, he has big brass ones.
He speaks truth, but for how long....

Posted by WontSay at June 13, 2007 12:53 PM

I love it. The guy almost sounds like Keith Olbermann.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 01:09 PM

The guy almost sounds like Keith Olbermann.

Yeah, I guess, if Keith Olbermann was British. And sane.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2007 01:12 PM

Yeah, I guess, if Keith Olbermann was British. And sane.

Well, Olbermann is certainly not British, but he and this guy have the same style of commentary, not to mention taking on similar targets.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 02:17 PM

Yeah, Pat's great. I started watching him after his Blasphemy Challenge video showed up on YouTube, and he usually has something interesting to say.

Posted by Ashley at June 13, 2007 02:27 PM

Oh, BTW Rand, here's another from the same guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f01IBDoZGg

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 02:51 PM

Well, I guess that explains why you like him, Brian, even though he's out to lunch on that issue, since there are no "compulsary Bible studies in the White House."

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2007 02:58 PM

Well, I guess that explains why you like him, Brian

I liked him because of the rant you posted, which was the first I'd ever heard of him. But unlike your views, his and mine are both based on an underlying standard, not on who's being attacked. His support for reason, fairness, and justice call him to criticize Islam in Britain, and you're supportive of that; but the same motives call him to attack Christian fundamentalism in the US, and suddenly you aren't so sanguine.

since there are no "compulsary Bible studies in the White House."

He never said they were compulsory. But it does matter that they're ubiquitous, daily, and attended religiously (if you will) by virtually all of the top White House leadership. It may also be significant to mention that about 150 executive staff members were hired directly out of Pat Robertson's tiny, 4th-tier evangelical law school with no other qualification.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 03:43 PM

His support for reason, fairness, and justice call him to criticize Islam in Britain, and you're supportive of that; but the same motives call him to attack Christian fundamentalism in the US, and suddenly you aren't so sanguine.

Consider the possibility that it's because Christian fundamentalists haven't been murdering women who don't dress properly, haven't been bombing subways, haven't been marching in the streets demanding that people who publish cartoons criticizing Christianity be beheaded, haven't been mutilating women's genitals, haven't been committing "honor" killings, haven't been massively supportive of murder in the name of their religion, haven't been...

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2007 03:57 PM

Rand.... you're being sensible, that doesn't register with BS.

Just because Fundamentalist Christians don't commit the horrible atrocities that radical Islamonazis do doesn't mean that they don't WANT to do those things. BS and other radical ultra liberal wackos like him can read their hearts and minds, he knows that they really want to be just as evil as Bin Laden. Right BS?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 05:05 PM

Just because Fundamentalist Christians don't commit the horrible atrocities that radical Islamonazis do doesn't mean that they don't WANT to do those things.

But without mastering the ability to telepathically link with one's audience - as well as with the group being studied - one would never be able to support the hypothesis that such desires are common to "Fundamentalist" Christians. Unless such Christians were to start expressing such desires on a large scale.

Thay they don't, and that historically they've been more than willing to express all sorts of unpopular beliefs, says something.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 13, 2007 06:25 PM

Let's get to the bottom of this first off and summarize the point you seem to be dancing around: For some reason, you think it somehow relevant to note that Christian fundamentalists aren't as bad as Islamic fundamentalists, and I have to ask: So what? Why does that cause you to let them off the hook and disparage people who find their violent, hate-driven psychosis disturbing and dangerous? You seem to regard even pacifistic liberals with a histrionic rage bordering on frenzy, but can't seem to work up more than a drop of indignation about Christian conservatives in this country who chronically abuse every inch of authority, because they don't compare impressively with al Qaeda suicide bombers? There's no reason, perspective, or ethical objectivity whatsoever in that attitude, and I can only suspect you cling to it because liberals are their staunchest critics. Don't you think it just a little nuts to be citing the fact they don't blow people up on a daily basis as evidence that they're not at all dangerous or worthy of condemnation? The KKK never approached the frequency, density, and extent of Islamic terrorism, so are you going to pooh-pooh the horror and misery they caused? Are you going to suggest the FBI's "Southern invasion" after the Mississippi murders was an overreaction, and that people who focused on it instead of Marxist terrorism overseas were "out to lunch"? Come on Rand, that's totally ridiculous.

Rand: Consider the possibility that it's because Christian fundamentalists haven't been murdering women who don't dress properly

Just abortion doctors, homosexuals, and Iraqis, for the most part. Although the jury's still out on the anthrax attacks and Larry Flynt's shooter.

haven't been bombing subways

Right, merely abortion clinics, cars of abortion doctors, the Olympic Park, and Iraq.

haven't been marching in the streets demanding that people who publish cartoons criticizing Christianity be beheaded

Unlike murdering people with sniper rifles, pipe bombs, or a national military they never have to join, terrorist threats in a public street protest would result in immediate consequences.

haven't been mutilating women's genitals

Because that might involve looking at them. You know, a mortal sin, unlike murder or torture.

haven't been committing "honor" killings

Oh, you mean they haven't been killing people for traditions that were never part of their culture in the first place--clearly evidence of a deep and profound respect for human life.

haven't been massively supportive of murder in the name of their religion

Yes, they have. They were fanatically supportive of the Cheney regime from the beginning, flocked to its deranged messianic message with unprecedented fervor, were appointed en masse throughout the Executive and Judicial Branches, and remain virtually the only people in America who still support George W. Bush. And then there are things like this, which certainly make any sane person wonder:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/29/203330/248

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 06:43 PM

Brian, if this last post was a (pathetic) attempt to convince the assembled that you're not bat-shit crazy, it probably had exactly the opposite effect.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2007 07:07 PM

Just because Fundamentalist Christians don't commit the horrible atrocities that radical Islamonazis do doesn't mean that they don't WANT to do those things.

Well, let's see now: They threaten to do it constantly, all over the country; find out the names and addresses of abortion clinic employees, post them on the internet, and try to terrorize them and disrupt their personal lives; send hundreds to thousands of death threats through the phone, mail, and email every year to abortion clinics alone, not even counting those sent to liberal political organizations and high-profile activists; commit hundreds of acts of vandalism, stalking, battery, or other acts of petty terrorism; send hundreds of fake letter bombs and fake anthrax envelopes; dozens of real bombs attempting to kill doctors, nurses, and patients; and every once in a while, a professional hit on an abortion doctor. So yes, Cecil--they're hate-filled cowards who try to work themselves up to progressively worse acts, testing the law enforcement response at each step, and they would murder their enemies en masse if they could.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 07:12 PM

Brian,

Rule number one when finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 13, 2007 07:21 PM

Brian, if this last post was a (pathetic) attempt to convince the assembled that you're not bat-shit crazy, it probably had exactly the opposite effect.

Rand, if this feeble, flailing insult was your attempt to salvage some dignity after having your warped priorities and tenuous grasp of reality examined in detail, I must inform you it was probably not a good idea. You continue to respond to substance with hot air, questions with insults, points with bludgeons, facts with emotion, and reasoned perspective with desperate solipsism. No matter what the topic is, you will always change the subject to personal attacks on your counterpart, and have never once (in my experience) made a considerate, temperate, and thoughtful reply to remarks substantially differing from your own. Any fact or thought that doesn't agree with your line you take as an attack on you personally, and respond in kind. That's paranoid, childish, and asinine.

Now, do you have anything to say on the topic, about my points, or can we safely conclude I've thoroughly addressed and dismantled your position? I prefer to assume that you have a unique and worthwhile perspective to offer, no matter how often you prove otherwise.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 07:27 PM

Fundamentalists' support for "intelligent design science" and their attempts to make the teaching of it compulsory would, in a rational society, make them prime candidates for the rubber room.

Instead, there are Congressmen, with the power of creating legislation, that believe that particular form of garbage.

Democracy only works properly when the majority of the electorate is capable of rational thought. This is apparently not the case in the USA and is probably not in the UK. Maybe the desire to keep it that way is the real reason why the education system in both countries is so bad?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 13, 2007 07:31 PM

"Now, do you have anything to say on the topic, about my points, or can we safely conclude I've thoroughly addressed and dismantled your position? "

No, we can safely conclude there in no rational compulsion that requires Rand treat the bloviations of the local village idiot as being dignified enough to merit a response.

Post as an adult and perhaps you will not be reated as a mouthy child trying to interject himself into the affairs of adults.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 13, 2007 07:58 PM

Brian is a fountain of innuendo. He suggests that various dirty deeds are commonly supported by Christians. Prove it.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 13, 2007 08:07 PM

Fletcher, do you really believe that certain politicians believing God created the universe (a belief espoused by Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower etc.) is the equivalent of all the unnameable horrors that Islamic terrorists have committed in the name of Allah? Are you insane?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 08:10 PM

"Brian is a fountain of innuendo. He suggests that various dirty deeds are commonly supported by Christians. Prove it."

He treats the threat from a Fence Lizard and a Crocodile as equal because both are Reptile.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 13, 2007 08:16 PM

Mike: No, we can safely conclude there in no rational compulsion that requires Rand treat the bloviations of the local village idiot as being dignified enough to merit a response.

Good job on the unsolicited toadying, Mike. But while we're here, do you happen to have any substantive comment on my points, maybe something resembling a thought or idea? I know the answer, of course, but it feels good to give people a chance every once in a while.

Post as an adult and perhaps you will not be reated as a mouthy child trying to interject himself into the affairs of adults.

Mike, you can't win a maturity contest against me, so just stop embarrassing yourself. The idea that you don't know what you sound like saying this is a lot more painful than anything you're saying. You're making me feel like a bully here, and all I'm trying to do is have a serious discussion.

Alan: Brian is a fountain of innuendo. He suggests that various dirty deeds are commonly supported by Christians. Prove it.

I suggest nothing of the sort, only that Christian radicals are commonly sympathetic to violence.

1. Radical evangelicals and fundamentalists overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Iraq (some "peacemakers," huh?), and they remain strongly supportive of the occupation and the regime. There appears to be strong belief that the invasion was necessary to fulfill key conditions described in Revelations.

2. There seems--seems, mind you--to be a strong correlation between states generally associated with Christian conservatism and both per capita execution rate and rate of death sentence reversal.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=477&scid=8
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman/Liebman%20Study/docs/1/liebapp 7.pdf

There also seems to be a strong correlation between practice of corporal punishment on children and regions typically associated with Christian fundamentalism, in addition to prevalance of racist views, but that I'll admit is just based on observation.

3. Eric Rudolph had vocal sympathizers in rural North Carolina where he was being hunted, and indeed many religious anti-abortionists around the country regarded him not as a murderer, but as some kind of folk hero. His organization, the Army of God, which is still active and listed as a terrorist group, is a fountain of typical "pro-life" histrionics about the "murder of innocents," the Bible, etc etc, and proposes to remedy this with the murder of effectively everyone who isn't on board.

4. Virtually all abortion-related violence is committed by those oppose to it, and virtually all of the perpetrators in America are motivated by Christian religious beliefs.

5. General William Boykin referred to the US military as the "Army of God," our enemies as Satan's forces, and George W. Bush as anointed by God to lead the world against them. He was promoted to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

6. John Ashcroft.

7. Tom DeLay.

8. Reverend Phelps.

9. Pat Robertson.

10. Jerry Falwell.

11. Dick Cheney.

12. Katherine Harris.

13. James Dobson.

14. Rick Warren.

I could go on, if you like. Or you can simply acknowledge that there is a dangerous, fanatical, abusive, and at least potentially violent minority subculture within American Christianity. You don't have to admit that virtually all of them are Republicans, which is also true, but you should at least admit they exist.

He treats the threat from a Fence Lizard and a Crocodile as equal because both are Reptile.

Mike,
Fence Lizard overthrew the Constitution, has almost a majority of the Supreme Court, and is in possession of nuclear weapons. You really need to get some perspective.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 10:38 PM

Dang. I had no idea that as a Christian, I am the source of all evil.

I guess you'd probably better call the police, before I go blow up an abortion clinic, or something. How many bombs have Christians set off this year? 100? 500? I lose count, sometimes.

Posted by Big D at June 13, 2007 10:55 PM

Big D: Dang. I had no idea that as a Christian, I am the source of all evil.

This is the same kind of defensive flippancy that CAIR often uses for Muslims, and it doesn't help. You don't accomplish anything responding to all criticism with knee-jerk accusations of anti-Christian bias. In fact, it just makes the person doing it look more tolerant of what's being criticized than of the criticism itself.

I just talked about a lot of specifics, and mentioned a lot of very powerful and influential people with extremist Christian views, but your response was to simply take umbrage and dismiss it all with a sarcastic remark. The abortion doctors and nurses who live under constant, credible threat of death or injury by these people don't think it's funny; the women who have to endure their harassment just to have a consultation don't think it's funny; and I can guarantee you the people of Iraq don't find it amusing either. Entire states are effectively off-limits to certain segments of the population due to religious bigotry, and the word "Christian" in these states has become virtually synonymous with hate and exclusion. Since you consider yourself Christian, have you done anything to change that, or do you just complain when someone talks about it? Who would Jesus torture? Or was the "Lord and Savior of the World" unaware of these modern exigencies, and speaking mainly in the abstract?

Frankly, it doesn't even matter. These people are evil by any standard of morality that isn't tailor-made to excuse them, and the fact that they're also hypocrites to the religion they hijack is entirely incidental. Every large enough population has people exactly like them, and the health of a civilization can be measured by how far from power they're kept. In ours, thanks partly to some of the commenters here, those people are presently in direct command of the world's most powerful military and several thousand thermonuclear ICBMs. That's right--people who believe that God wills them to facilitate the Battle of Armageddon are in possession of the tools for human extinction. Sleep well, America.

How many bombs have Christians set off this year? 100? 500? I lose count, sometimes.

How many bombs did Muslims set off in the UK this year? If it was zero, would that moderate your opinion of Islam in the UK, or would you just think that MI5 is doing its job well? Abortion clinic bombings were never frequent, but they have always been attended by a large volume of threats, vandalism, stalking, harassment, and fake attacks to cause terror and gauge law enforcement responses. After the anthrax attacks became public, hundreds of envelopes filled with white powder were mailed to abortion clinics across the country--that's right, these "Christians" wanted hundreds of people to think they were going to die a slow, painful death. Do you suppose they would have held back if they had access to real anthrax?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 14, 2007 01:45 AM

BS "I just talked about a lot of specifics"

BS you are an idiot. Do you even know what specifics are? You list a bunch of names of people you hate, just their names, and that is specifics? You list Tom DeLay along with nutcase Phelps and that is specifics? You make the outrageous claim that Christians in charge of nuclear weapons are planning to facilitate Armageddon, and just making the charge is being "specific"?
You're just nuts, plain and simple. I could go on, but I have a job to go to now. Have fun, you lunatic.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 14, 2007 04:26 AM

Brian wrote:

His support for reason, fairness, and justice call him to criticize Islam in Britain, and you're supportive of that; but the same motives call him to attack Christian fundamentalism in the US, and suddenly you aren't so sanguine.

You're making a point, but if anybody spends roughly half their concern on each, then it seems as silly as a policeman who expends half of his concern on serial killers and the other half on jaywalkers.

Posted by Mike Combs at June 14, 2007 06:17 AM

Brian wrote:

This is the same kind of defensive flippancy that CAIR often uses for Muslims, and it doesn't help.

Christians can honestly and accurately say that the vast overwhelming majority of them condemn the bombing of abortion clinics. CAIR tries to reassure us that nothing is wrong because significantly over half of Muslims disagree with blowing up those who disagree with you.

Posted by Mike Combs at June 14, 2007 06:29 AM

"Mike,
Fence Lizard overthrew the Constitution, has almost a majority of the Supreme Court, and is in possession of nuclear weapons. You really need to get some perspective."

No, you need to get some professional counselling and medication. You are dumber than I though if you actually believe your own propaganda.

I suspect you think Chimpy McHitler brougth down the WTC too but are too afraid to admit it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 14, 2007 06:37 AM

"Mike, you can't win a maturity contest against me, so just stop embarrassing yourself."

Of course not. Mentally insane people like yourself are ineligible to compete. I cannot win a non-existant contest.

However, you could not win a sanity contest against anyone else on this board......

I can't believe you dumped Oler and yet kept froot loops here Rand.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 14, 2007 06:42 AM

Steel doesn't melt at 1000°C Mike, even Rosie O'donnell knows that.

Posted by Adrasteia at June 14, 2007 06:44 AM

Let's go through the list:

1. Actually, we are in the process of making things more peaceful - we have gotten rid of most of the non-peaceful elements of Saddam's regime, and are fighting a war to defend the new government from outside invaders (most of the insurgents come from abroad). There are certainly lots of Christians who start to wonder about End Times prophecy when things heat up somewhere in the Middle East, but I'm unaware of anyone who says the Iraq War Part Deux is foretold somewhere in Revelation.

2. Capital punishment for murder is equitable punishment. I still disfavor it; my personal philosophy is that lethal force should be employed to address at-learge deadly threats (see #1). The courts are far too prone to arbitrariness to be entrusted with it, IMO, albeit that arbitrariness tend to favor defendants (*cough* OJ *cough*).

3. The bulk of Western corporal punishment is hardly an example of radical violence. As for bastions of racist views, I think of places like Crown Heights and liberal academia.

3. I'd almost forgotten about Eric Rudolph, and I never heard of him being widely regarded as a folk hero.

4. Fringe of the fringe.

5. Bad PR move, even if the Satan part is accurate regarding the terrorists. The "Army of God" part is way over the top.

6, 7. Huh?

8. Fringe of the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. Hates pretty much everybody who isn't Westboro. Is even against James Dobson for his support of ex-gay ministries.

9. "Crazy uncle" pops into my head. Got a bad rap for the six-goals-of-feminism quote, which Pat could have ameliorated if he'd done a better job of telling people the name of the obscure feminist tract where he got the list from. (It's been well over a decade since I ran across that tidbit of info.)

10. Classier and less emotional than #9, but has some tone-deaf moments. (Should have mentioned all those people who - mostly favorably - outed Tinky Winky before he did.) Good at forging friendships across the cultural isle. Not the hate-monger some people think he is.

11. Huh?

12. She was better off in her state post. (And so were we.)

13. The king of family and relationship advice. On politics, he and Falwell and all the others (except for total lost causes Rudolph and Phelps) should be addressed on an issue-by-issue basis.

14. Huh???????

I could come up with a similar list of, oh, lefty icons of academia (moonbat Ward Churchill and terrorist Angela Davis are the first two that come to mind) who are destructive forces in America. But anecdotes don't tell us how many academics or right-to-lifers are pro-vigilante like Davis and Rudolph.

It's truly amazing and pathetic to see what names you associate with potential criminal violence. Rudolph and maybe Phelps (if there's been any protest violence) are the only two named individuals who fit the bill. (The wacky general is an instrument of due process violence, not criminal.) Violent abortion protests are rare, and violent racism isn't that common; not many in this country suffer the fate of Yankel Rosenbaum and James Byrd tend to emanate more from the left these days. This ain't exactly Gaza.

You're just plain paranoid.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 14, 2007 06:46 AM

What a silly discussion.

Anyway, could I ask you Brian to check out Rick Warren a little more carefully? You might find that he doesn't quite belong on your list. On the larger topic, a minority of Christian and Jewish nuts have had a significant role in this administration. That is quite clear. They are not representative of the large majority of Jews for example who, for example, strongly oppose the war In Iraq. Similarly the Catholic church argued that the war on Iraq did not meet the criteria for a just war. Recently the Pope added to this with his verabl expressions of discontent with regards to what Bush's war has done to the Iraqi Christian community.

It would seem to me, considering the vast majority of peaceful Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey, the bulk of Moslems being outside of the Oil Zones, where we have nationally decided to focus our attention, that some here on this blog, know about as much about Islam as Brian knows about Christians.

Posted by Offside at June 14, 2007 07:01 AM

Offside: "On the larger topic, a minority of Christian and Jewish nuts have had a significant role in this administration. That is quite clear."

No it is only clear that YOU and BS and some other "tolerant" folks believe them to be "nuts", not that they are in fact actual "nuts".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 14, 2007 08:55 AM

Cecil, you once again demonstrate the capacity of the uber-right to never see shades of grey. Here I am criticizing Brian, agreeing with you that he has Christians lumped in unnecessary fashion, and you have to find the littlest nit that you can pick in what I said. You would of course love that all liberals could be lumped together with Brian, as is evdent in how you tie to coalesce Brian with myself in your comment. Is it because it is clear that I'm a Christian and a liberal that you find it hard to compute? I would recommend reading where St Francis stood with regards to the Crusades. The Christian nuts I refer to are those who use the cross as a sword, completely misunderstanding what Jesus was trying to teach us.

Posted by Offside at June 14, 2007 09:43 AM

Offside: "who use the cross as a sword"

Like who? Name the "nuts".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 14, 2007 11:35 AM

Cecil:

No, I don't believe that belief in God creating the Universe is equivalent to the violent garbage spouted, and acted upon, by Islamist rubber-room candidates. Neither did I say it.

I believe that God created the universe. I don't believe that he created the entire universe, complete with Earth's complete ecosystem and enormous amounts of evidence leading us to believe that the Universe is fifteen billion years old and the Earth is aged 4.5 billion - and all that 6000 years ago, in six days.

I don't believe that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of a few days during a worldwide flood. I don't believe that several billion cubic kilometres of water just appeared and then conveniently disappeared again, or that a mated pair of each of at least a million species could be fitted into a ship about the size of a modern cruise liner - along with their food for over a month. Nor do I believe that such a ship could be built with the technology of the early Bronze Age, out of wood.

The fundies claim not only to know that God created the universe, but to know exactly how he did it and how long it took, based on a five-thousand-year-old book written by dozens of authors and badly translated at least three times. That is monstrous arrogance, if nothing else. And your President feels forced to go along with it, at least in public.

To any fundies reading this, if any:

You claim to know the will of God, and understand him. You are speaking of He whose writ runs from the cores of stars to the gulfs between galaxies, from superstrings to superclusters, from the fires of the Beginning to the freezing black emptiness at the end of Time. That claim is a sin, and the sin is a mortal one.

It is the sin of Pride.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 14, 2007 04:58 PM

"I believe that God created the universe. I don't believe that he created the entire universe..."

Um... okay.

Posted by Andrea Harris at June 14, 2007 06:20 PM

Cecil: BS you are an idiot.

Praise from Caesar.

You list a bunch of names of people you hate, just their names, and that is specifics?

I list them because of their own hate, and I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you knew the details.

You list Tom DeLay along with nutcase Phelps

And what part do you not understand? They're both fundamentalist loonies.

You make the outrageous claim that Christians in charge of nuclear weapons are planning to facilitate Armageddon

The fact is outrageous, not the claim. And I never said they were necessarily intending to launch the missiles any time soon, just that they see bringing about the battle of Armageddon as described in Revelations as desirable. Apocalyptic fundamentalists have a significant presence in the White House, including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and there is some evidence that these beliefs played a role in the invasion of Iraq.

You're just nuts, plain and simple.

It's a little hard to be insecure about my sanity when my views (on this issue) are in line with most of the free world.

Mike Combs: You're making a point, but if anybody spends roughly half their concern on each, then it seems as silly as a policeman who expends half of his concern on serial killers and the other half on jaywalkers.

That would be the case if we were only talking about private groups, but these people control the Executive branch of the United States government and, by extension, have a strong influence on its law enforcement, military, and judicial apparatus.

Yes, and I've never denied the dichotomy, but read above what I said to Rand: Why does a favorable comparison with Islam let them off the hook? If any group, no matter how hateful and bigoted, is less egregious than al Qaeda, do they not warrant concern?

Mike Puckett: I suspect you think Chimpy McHitler brougth down the WTC too but are too afraid to admit it.

And no doubt you think Saddam Hussein brought down the towers, perhaps after a meeting of the Axis of Evil in their underground fortress. The difference between that psychosis and the left-wing delusions I've never even come close to entertaining is that the former have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.

I cannot win a non-existant contest.

And yet you keep pursuing it. Why are you shadow-boxing with an imagined antagonist in a competition you admit doesn't exist?

Alan: Actually, we are in the process of making things more peaceful - we have gotten rid of most of the non-peaceful elements of Saddam's regime, and are fighting a war to defend the new government from outside invaders (most of the insurgents come from abroad).

Alan, that's just way off the mark. The vast majority of people fighting the occupation in Iraq are Iraqis who would forget we existed if we left, and the Pentagon's own estimates peg the number of al Qaeda in Iraq at 500. Secondly, this idea that there exists an Iraqi government is just pure fiction--they exist solely under the aegis of US power, have virtually no authority outside the Green Zone, and it's just insane to insist we stay there forever to continue that pretense. We've been there for four years and just keep hearing excuse after excuse; one set of objectives failes, so another replaces it without any acknowledgement that anything has changed, almost like 1984; and the violence just keeps increasing. They lied about the effects of the surge, lied about everything before it, and just keep doing it with every new stage in the evolving cataclysm. This is what a faith-based foreign policy yields.

There are certainly lots of Christians who start to wonder about End Times prophecy when things heat up somewhere in the Middle East, but I'm unaware of anyone who says the Iraq War Part Deux is foretold somewhere in Revelation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf2003037_4103_db056.htm

This is really the tip of the iceberg. Over the past years, I've seen reports on Bush saying things like "the Evil One is among us" in religious discussions about foreign policy, articles reporting the distribution of End Times videos among evangelical groups implying that Bush was a Prophet of some kind, and many other incidents of similar character. I don't necessarily think he personally will do something unimaginable before leaving power, but the movement will have gained substantial power in the courts and military over the preceding 8 years.

Capital punishment for murder is equitable punishment.

But why are devotion to Christianity and support, nay enthusiasm for killing people through the state so strongly related? The most egregious railroadings always seem to come from places like Texas, Oklahoma, etc. When I read the facts of those cases, and compare them to others, I swear it almost seems like judges and juries in those parts of the country just want to kill someone.

The bulk of Western corporal punishment is hardly an example of radical violence.

Nor was I implying it was, only noting that strongly Christian parts of the country seem to have conspicuously violent cultures. I should make clear that the association I'm making is between religion and violence, not Christianity specifically, which just happens to be the dominant mode in this country.

Bad PR move, even if the Satan part is accurate regarding the terrorists. The "Army of God" part is way over the top.

And you don't think it dangerous to have a radical zealot in such a high position of responsibility in the United States military? I remind you the man was promoted after his remarks.

Got a bad rap for the six-goals-of-feminism quote, which Pat could have ameliorated if he'd done a better job of telling people the name of the obscure feminist tract where he got the list from.

Robertson is one of the apocalyptic believers I was referring to earlier, and he routinely says things like that Disneyland will be inundated with floods, earthquakes, fires, or even meteors for its policies on gay partner benefits. He's a nut, and clearly belongs on the list.

Classier and less emotional than #9, but has some tone-deaf moments.

This is Falwell you're talking about? Alan, the man believed 9/11 was the wrath of God against New York City for being liberal. He believed his God directed the murder of thousands of innocent people in retaliation for homosexuality, abortion, and social libertinism, and therefore apparently considered it an act of justice. He was batshit.

She was better off in her state post.

She was better off in private life, being insane on her own time. If she hadn't been totally upfront about her raving fundamentalist views, Republicans would have stuck by Harris every step of the way. It isn't being insane that lost her support in the GOP; it was being honest about it.

I could come up with a similar list of, oh, lefty icons of academia

The difference being that they literally are fringe, and completely powerless, whereas the raving maniacs of the right are in central positions of national power or strongly influential over them.

You're just plain paranoid.

You're just plain obtuse.

Offside: Anyway, could I ask you Brian to check out Rick Warren a little more carefully?

He certainly says some respectable things, but then he goes off and sponsors a Christian jihad videogame modeled on Left Behind where you have to murder the unbelievers.

that some here on this blog, know about as much about Islam as Brian knows about Christians.

I assure you, that's a mistaken impression. It's far less relevant how many people in a group are not violent than how many are actively nonviolent. The vast majority of Muslims would never consider committing a terrorist act, but outside the United States, how likely is it to see Muslims angrily denouncing en masse an act of terrorism against Westerners? Such things have occurred, as in what happened after the hotel bombings in Amman, but they are quite rare compared to denunciations of trivial insults against their religion. A similar, albeit differently scaled phenomenon applies in American Christianity: While there are Christian groups in the US committed to protest against violence, and stand for liberal values, they are vastly outspent and outnumbered by bigoted right-wing Christian groups who support any form of violence they can politically get away with supporting. You mention the Pope's statements about Iraq, but contrast the response of many US bishops on abortion to that on the war: Threats of excommunication were leveled at politicians with pro-choice views, but nothing even remotely approaching it on the war. Do you see my point?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 15, 2007 03:56 AM

BS: "You list Tom DeLay along with nutcase Phelps

And what part do you not understand? They're both fundamentalist loonies."

In your eyes ANYONE who expresses a belief in God is a "fundamentalist loonie" as well, so do you think I and Tom DeLay support protesting soldiers funerals?

You have no concept of degree. Either someone agrees with you totally or they are a complete nutcase, nothing between the extremes.

You know what that makes you? An extremist, the same thing you accuse these others of being.

BS: "a radical zealot in such a high position of responsibility in the United States military?"

General Patton? General Eisenhower?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2007 05:27 AM

Cecil, the difference between Bush and Patton or Eisenhower is that neither of those two were capable of destroying civilisation along with most or all of the human race, to say nothing of countless other species.

Bush is. And him being president of the USA is akin to giving someone hospitalised with paranoid schizophrenia a loaded Uzi and letting him out in the middle of a shopping mall.

The USA has the most powerful military machine in the world, bar none by a very long way. Is it too much for the rest of the world to ask for you to have someone sane and competent in charge of it?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 15, 2007 06:36 AM

Cecil: In your eyes ANYONE who expresses a belief in God is a "fundamentalist loonie"

Are you saying Tom DeLay is your model for general theistic belief?

so do you think I and Tom DeLay support protesting soldiers funerals?

Tom DeLay supports causing soldiers' funerals.

You have no concept of degree.

Your degrees are set to the wrong scale, so we're talking about two different things. If we imagine a common set of basic moral, ethical, and rational principles as a point, and distance from that point as deviance from those principles, then I would be talking about that distance while you talk about how far apart from each other the deviations are. In simple terms, what you're relying on is called moral relativism--i.e., you're judging immorality by other immorality, not by specific standards of right and wrong.

Either someone agrees with you totally or they are a complete nutcase, nothing between the extremes.

How short is your range of vision if Tom DeLay is at one extreme and Phelps at the other? If the average American were sitting at the exact geographical center of the United States (Kansas, IIRC) facing North, with liberals to the West and conservatives to the East, Tom DeLay would be in Bangor and Phelps on the border of New Brunswick.

You know what that makes you? An extremist, the same thing you accuse these others of being.

This is doublethink, Cecil. There's no length you couldn't take this kind of apologism.

General Patton? General Eisenhower?

Patton constantly made sport of his chaplains' sensibilities, idolized classicism, and often expounded at length on his many blasphemous, heretical, and/or pagan beliefs about various things even while praying to the Christian God and reading from the Bible. He considered himself a warrior-poet with deep spiritual connections to the pre-Christian world, and would have laughed at being classed with the likes of William Boykin--an ignorant Dark Age zealot caught up in his own apocalyptic fantasies.

While Eisenhower played a role in the "Under God" nonsense during the Red Scare, and was apparently quite devout, his public demeanor and virtually all other decisions as president nevertheless remained acutely rational and secular. In other words, not a fundamentalist, and not relevant.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 15, 2007 07:14 AM

"Are you saying Tom DeLay is your model for general theistic belief?"

Of course not, you're assuming.

"Tom DeLay supports causing soldiers' funerals."

That is low even for you.

"How short is your range of vision if Tom DeLay is at one extreme and Phelps at the other?"

Again, your assumption. I never stated that.

"This is doublethink"

Only when you are the extremist.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2007 09:29 AM

FC:"someone sane and competent in charge of it"

Your insinuating Bush isn't sane doesn't make it so, it only makes you look like a fanatical wacko whose own sanity might be questionable.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2007 09:42 AM

Of course not, you're assuming.

Then your conclusion was a non sequitur. I categorized Tom DeLay with Phelps, and your response was to accuse me of including "any" believer whatsoever, so clearly you're implying that Tom DeLay is a typical believer.

That is low even for you.

It has nothing to do with me. Tom DeLay is an ecstatic, frenzied supporter of militaristic aggression and violence, and the price paid by others is of no consequence to him. If anything, he seems to find the carnage somehow ennobling, and his views in that respect are the norm among extreme religious conservatives.

Only when you are the extremist.

It's doublethink, period. You invoke moral relativism to say that radical fundamentalist Republicans are not a threat to freedom because they're not crashing planes into buildings, but then suddenly turn that standard on its head and call me a nut for merely considering them dangerous. What would you have said to a liberal German in 1933 who called the new Chancellor a psychotic madman? I'll bet you'd have called him a Bolshevik wing nut with no sense of proportion, wouldn't you? After all, the Commies in the East were the scourge of Europe, and another mustchioed headcase was busy fertilizing the steppes with blood, so how bad could a new Chancellor be who advocates "traditional German values," capitalism, and patriotism? His leftist critics have really gone over the top with all this Hitler Derangement, comparing him to Stalin--what complete moonbats!

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 15, 2007 09:55 PM

Revelation - Nobody in the Bush administration has tied the Iraq War to Revelation - only some paranoid outsiders. Some Bushies may have linked terrorists to demonic forces in general, but hey, people who believe in demonic forces think that anything evil wittingly or unwittingly has a DSL connection with Lucifer.

"Army of God" - I didn't hear the quote and can't really ascertain the general's context or frame of mind. I can't tell anything about him from one quote other than that he's got a lousy sense of PR.

Robertson: The first anecdote I always think of is that dumb feminist tract quote that almost everyone thinks he originated. The second is his broadcast on 9/11, when he stated as fact that it was Islamic terrorism before any evidence was in. Then there's the Hugo Chavez quote, which one expects from the Norm sitting at the end of the bar and not from a national broadcaster. Robertson is rash, goofy, and pretty much harmless. To put him on a "nutty Christians" list" is one thing; to consider him a reason to FEAR a certain Christian constituency is, as I said before, paranoid.

Falwell: I was comparing him to Robertson, not to C. S. Lewis. Jerry was more cosmopolitan than Pat, in that he has an reputation of making friendships across ideological lines, Larry Flynt being one of the more notable. Long time ago Falwell once made a deal with Ted Kennedy, arranging for the former to speak at Harvard and the latter at Thomas Road Baptist; the church audience was the polite one. I can't see Robertson having the imagination to arrange an exchange like that. It's not nutty for Christians to believe that God punishes nations - since the Bible makes that claim - but of course it's presumptouos to say with any certainty that any particular event is divine punishment for X. We don't freakin' know.

Robertson and Falwell: People will praise or condemn them based upon a tiny fraction of what the public really knows about these guys. This thread will be long dead before I can make a decent assessment of either's histories. I have read enough of Lewis to know where he's coming from; I haven't paid enough attention to Jerry or Pat to have a firm grasp grasp on their mindsets, although I've seen enough of both to prefer Jerry's temperament over Pat's.

The difference being that they literally are fringe, and completely powerless

You sure are the one to dismiss fringe influences. You treat antiabortion violence as if it were a serious and common current threat.

Davis is probably a cultural has-been for the most - I don't know (she does get a few gigs) - but I'm not sure that Churchill's influence is negligible. It certainly exceeds by far that of uber-fringe Fred Phelps.

The problem of incivility in academia is one I attribute more to certain trends that grew from the masses than to high-profile personalities. Stuff like censoring speech and publications in one way or another (speech codes, destroying other campus organizations' un-PC publications, etc.), shouting down conservative or otherwise un-PC speakers, harassing and/or ostracizing profs who don't toe the PC line.

--------

On another note, I have a question: has the Christian Right ever instigated a large-scale riot in America? Seems that all the famous ones of my lifetime (b. 1960) originated from some other constituency: Watts, '68 Dem convention, Days of Rage (1967, involved Weather Underground), Stonewall, LA (re Rodney King), Seattle (re WTO), Crown Heights, Woodstock 1999, a few sports-related ones.

(I once sarcastically called the LA Riots the most successful multicultural event in history. Juts about every class of person was involved - even a lottery winner joined the looting.)

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 16, 2007 12:09 AM

Oh, and about your claim about where Iraqi terrorists are coming from:

The state of affairs in 2005: "The jihadist component of the insurgency is composed primarily of Sunni Arabs from outside Iraq -- most of them from Saudi Arabia."

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=246581

Today: "The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11."

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/009204.html#009204

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 16, 2007 12:25 AM

"so clearly you're implying that Tom DeLay is a typical believer."

Where did I say typical?

"Tom DeLay is an ecstatic, frenzied supporter of militaristic aggression and violence"

You have any proof (not opinion) of that?

"carnage somehow ennobling, and his views in that respect are the norm among extreme religious conservatives."

That is only your ignorance shining through.

"radical fundamentalist Republicans"

Radical fundamentalist only in you warped opinion.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 17, 2007 06:25 AM

"It has nothing to do with me. Tom DeLay is an ecstatic, frenzied supporter of militaristic aggression and violence, and the price paid by others is of no consequence to him. If anything, he seems to find the carnage somehow ennobling, and his views in that respect are the norm among extreme religious conservatives."

It has everything to do with you. You are a delusional idiot.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 18, 2007 05:47 PM

Alan: Revelation - Nobody in the Bush administration has tied the Iraq War to Revelation

We have (a)God apparently told Bush to do it, (b)strong support of the war from apocalyptic zealots, and (c)one of his key generals, speaking literally rather than figuratively, called the US military the Army of God and our enemies the Army of Satan. And you can't figure out why rational people are a little concerned?

I didn't hear the quote and can't really ascertain the general's context or frame of mind. I can't tell anything about him from one quote other than that he's got a lousy sense of PR.

He said this specifically: "We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this." He also called the United States a "Christian nation," and of Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there." This was not unusual for him--he had faced some skepticism from superiors at various points for his extreme and outspoken religiosity, but his superior combat record outweighed their reservations, and then his behavior became an advantage under the Cheney regime.

The first anecdote I always think of is that dumb feminist tract quote that almost everyone thinks he originated.

I've watched 700 Club enough to know that's the tip of the iceberg--Robertson is Looney Tunes. He once did an episode about how Halloween is actually a Satanic ritual that opens up children's souls to possession and capture by demons, and spoke with a couple of Christian ladies who claimed it had happened to their kids. They even did little dramatic reenactments, with cardboard cutout shadows on the walls representing the demons.

Then there's the Hugo Chavez quote, which one expects from the Norm sitting at the end of the bar and not from a national broadcaster.

Norm would never say something like that.

to consider him a reason to FEAR a certain Christian constituency is, as I said before, paranoid.

Again, these are the people currently in control of the United States military, a large swath of the courts, and the rest of the Executive branch. They have already done grievous, possibly irreparable damage to the republic and the global cause of freedom. Robertson in particular has had virtually an open door into the Oval Office, at least until he revealed that Bush told him there would be no casualties in the Iraq invasion. Call it speculation, but it sounds to me like Bush expected God to intervene.

I was comparing him to Robertson, not to C. S. Lewis.

Falwell was far more vile than Robertson, regardless of similar lunacy.

Jerry was more cosmopolitan than Pat, in that he has an reputation of making friendships across ideological lines, Larry Flynt being one of the more notable.

Falwell was pretty far from "cosmopolitan," he simply allied with a broader range of bigots. He regarded everyone outside the social conservative fringe with a cloying self-righteous contempt bordering on malice, and he and Larry Flynt were bitter enemies to the last.

Long time ago Falwell once made a deal with Ted Kennedy, arranging for the former to speak at Harvard and the latter at Thomas Road Baptist; the church audience was the polite one.

An adept political maneuver. Falwell gets a platform in the nation's most prestigious university to legitimize himself; he could impress his followers for having gone into the halls of the fantasized "godless liberal elite"; and if there were disruptions, all the better for his position among social conservatives. But all Kennedy got in return was delivering a speech to people who obediently respected, then obediently ignored everything he said, giving him no greater platform in either his or Falwell's community.

It's not nutty for Christians to believe that God punishes nations - since the Bible makes that claim

The Bible is mythology, and it is absolutely nutty to ascribe supernatural causes to human actions. When most people say "divinely inspired" or "God-given," they're speaking metaphorically, sentimentally, or spiritually, not saying literally that deities made it happen.

but of course it's presumptouos to say with any certainty that any particular event is divine punishment for X. We don't freakin' know.

We do freakin' know. Things happen as a logical physical consequence of prior events, not deus ex machina every time something involves an excess of human emotion.

You treat antiabortion violence as if it were a serious and common current threat.

It's obviously not relevant for most people, but it does illustrate that our society isn't impervious to violent religious fanaticism. There's a star called Eta Carinae that many astronomers think could go supernova any time, with an intensity that would outshine the full moon and be visible during the day. How do you think the Creationists and other people who believe in Revelations would respond to that? I think they would be infused with new fervor and boldness, and the airwaves would be brimming with "End is Near" rhetoric stoking the violence and insanity of the most zealous among them.

has the Christian Right ever instigated a large-scale riot in America?

Not that I'm aware of, but the reasons have nothing to do with civility: (1)Riots are an expression of frustrated, impotent rage, but Christian fanatics have been quite successful at imposing and maintaining their standards within their own communities. The rest of America is turning against them, but you only get riotous anger when change or lack thereof within a community reaches a breaking point. (2)While religion is very strong among the poor and working-class, religious conservative activism is largely a product of the affluent middle-class or bourgeoisie, and the middle-class is extremely disinclined to physical confrontation. Even peaceful demonstrations are unusual from that sector, because they have far more institutional, political, and legal options available.

Oh, and about your claim about where Iraqi terrorists are coming from

I didn't say terrorists, I just referred to the people fighting the occupation. And the vast, overwhelming majority of them are Iraqis.

In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us.

Yes, because it's easy for them to operate there. The invasion made it so.

That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.

The US presence in Iraq is a victory for al Qaeda, a continuing affront to freedom and rule of law, and our pullout is not optional.

Cecil: Where did I say typical?

You implied that he represented the broad spectrum of religious viewpoint, so that would follow.

You have any proof (not opinion) of that?

http://www.slate.com/id/2070072/

That is only your ignorance shining through.

Once again answering facts with vitriol. Everything they say supports my conclusions--they see war as a noble, godly enterprise, and will support it if advertised to them in those terms. They are a fascistic, murderous subculture.

Radical fundamentalist only in you warped opinion.

In the opinion of the vast majority of the American people. Evangelical Christians are half a percent of the population, but you wouldn't know that looking at the White House staff.

Mike: It has everything to do with you. You are a delusional idiot.

Another moronic non sequitur is all you're good for, so enjoy it. Nobody else will.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 22, 2007 11:49 AM

Post a comment