Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Chinese observers in south Lebanon | Main | Jenin Anyone? »

Monday, July 31, 2006

Does my rebuttal look big in this?

At a time when the Middle East's only democracy is at war for its very survival, bombs are being lobbed from both sides daily, random Muslims are shooting up Jewish community centers full of women and Oliver Stone has made a 9/11 movie that doesn't paint a negative picture of America, it seems a little bit amazing that the Canadian blogosphere has dedicated so much time over the past ten days to... me. Ah yes, Wendy, always the center of attention. Somewhere in the afterlife, my parents are shaking their heads, having seen this oh-so-many times before. Careful everyone, all this limelight can ruin a girl's complexion.

Okay, snarky comments aside, I really am glad to have stirred up such controversy. People on both sides of the spectrum are discussing whether or not I should be drawn and quartered. The words Human Rights Tribunal have been tossed around. I have had to sit down with legal counsel to find out if there could potentially be a claim against me (and if, like some twisted version of Ally McBeal, I can actually sue an entire religion for promoting hate. Turns out that I can). You see, while the knee-jerk reaction of many was to immediately call me a racist (and then bigot, once they figured that the cult of Islam isn't a race), only a few commenters bothered to address the issue at hand: Is Islam a danger? Is it a threat? Should it be downgraded from legitimate religion to brainwashing cult?

There have been barbs from the secularists and the Islamic apologists pointing out that the Bible also has calls to arms. And they were then countered by the fact that as a group, Christians are not taught and tolerated to commit atrocities in the name of Christ. Kevin Libin of the Western Standard attempted (weakly) to point out that Andrea Yates killed her babies because she felt they were possessed by the devil. No Kevin. That wasn't Christianity. That wasn't anything that any religion might align itself with. And it was the Christian and secular West that cried out for justice for those poor kids. It wasn't Muslims, that's for sure.

I am not up for a debate over whose religion is better. I am simply stating my belief that one is not actually a religion to begin with. If I started a faith that worshipped Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer, and managed to get enough people to follow me, would that make my faith legitimate? Would I be eligible for tax deductions and protections under the Charter? What if the doctrines of my faith demanded that I kill starlets or eat gay prostitutes? Would I still be protected? Maybe, if I did it symbolically. If I just pretended to kill starlets and eat gay prostitutes, like in a ritual passion play, then maybe I could get away with it. But the day I actually go out and follow my holy doctrine to the letter, putting the lives of others in danger, I would have the wrath of society, the cops, the feds and socio-political pundits all over my ass. And rightly so. Why not with Islam?

In Canada and the United States, we are lucky enough to have freedom of religion and freedom of association - something Islamic countries do not subscribe to. So why then, are biker gangs (or gangs of any stripe) outlawed? Could it be because they are commiting illegal acts that put the lives of others in danger?

I've known guys in motorcylce clubs who do nothing except ride cross-country on Harleys. And I've known Christians.

I've lived in the East End of Montreal where the Hells Angels and Rock Machine ply their trade. And I've known Islam.

I know that the above examples are over the top, but think about them. Really think about them, and compare them to a religion that subjugates women, smites and beheads on nearly every page of its holy book, and blames everything - everything - on the Jews.

I truly hope for the sake of free society (of which many people have made me the enemy) you will continue to discuss some of the points I have put forward. I hope that you debate the points I have brought up, and decide for yourselves, free of political correctness, whether or not Islam can safely integrate with Western society. And if it cannot, I hope you will have the courage to be hated for trying to do something about it.

Posted by RightGirl on July 31, 2006 in Religion | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83461b58469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does my rebuttal look big in this?:

» RightGirl: The Rebuttal from Rempelia Prime
RightGirl has put up her official rebuttal to all the hoo-hawing in response to her recent post at The Shotgun... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-07-31 9:09:55 PM

Comments

The western world cooked up a meal .. (multiculturalsim with a side dish of political correctness) that caused a violent reaction resulting in a lot of puke on the floor of the western world.

What is being discussed here is the quality, quantity and toxicity of that puke when we should be discussing how to clean it up.

- McGuire sounds like a liberal moonbat apologist
- Libin sounds like Islam got to him
- Right Girl is the canary in the mine I noticed she isn't breathing well. Could she be choking on the puke that seems to seeping onto the floor of the Western Standard?

Lstly, Vitruvius has 12 comments so far on this post.

IT'S BECOMING THE VITRUVIUS SHOW HERE. BORING!

And would someone please ban that idiot Karol K.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-01 10:07:56 AM


My lungs are just fine, Duke, thanks for asking. It will take a bomb blast in Downtown Toronto to scorch them. However... it will happen.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-08-01 10:16:46 AM


Lady:

There are some people who would look at the Old Testament texts and see examples of Jewish expansion into the promised land and could draw a conclusion it was also a warrior cult.

Deuteronomy, chapters 7 & 20. and Joshua, chapters 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, etc.:
After wandering in the desert for four decades, God ordered the Hebrews to invade the "promised land" and totally exterminate "the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites" leaving "alive nothing that breathes."
The book of Joshua records the progress of the genocide, city by city:
Joshua 8:24 - City of Ai
Joshua 10:26 - Joshua murdered five defenseless kings of the Amorites in cold blood.
Joshua 10:28 - City of Makkedah
Joshua 10:29 - City of Libnah
Joshua 10:31 - City of Lachish
Joshua 10:33 - City of Gezer "... Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining."
Joshua 10:34 - City of Elgon "They left none remaining."
Joshua 10:37 - City of Hebron
Joshua 10:38 - City of Debir

Judges, chapters 19 and 20: Some of the people in the town of Gibeah of the tribe of Benjamin sexually abused and murdered the concubine of a priest. In an act of grave desecration of her body, her owner mutilated her corpse by cutting it into 12 pieces. He sent one to each of the tribes of Israel. This triggered a civil war between the tribe of Benjamin, and an army of 400,000 soldiers, drawn from the remaining 11 tribes. Tens of thousands died during the fighting. Apparently all of the Benjamin towns were burned and their women and children were systematically exterminated during these battles.
The tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out; only a few hundred men survived.
Other atrocities then followed which provided new wives for the men of the tribe of Benjamin, so that the tribe would continue.

Now, I consider those passages sent to me on my chat group an interesting chronicle of history ... yet here is a question about modern-day Israel ... meant to be an honest request for an answer and not an attack.

Apparently, Hizb'allah sees itself in terms of a religious mission against Jews. In your understanding, is there any difference between the religion of the Jews and the state of Israel?

Perhaps I have not found the answer yet in my research, but I have not, in any of my research, found any craving for a return or establishment of a Jewish homeland for religious reasons.

Last Friday, a photo of a protest by Orthodox Jews in front of Israel's embassy in New York City suggested at least several religious Jews did not agree with what the state of Israel was doing. In your understanding, what is the dichotomy between Orthodox Jews and the state of Israel?

Does this go beyond dissent or is there a fundamental difference in worldview?

And, despite those verses from Joshua in which there is no attempt to hide the annihilation of peoples and their villages, when will people stop thinking they have the power of revenge in their own hands? And, does this hatred continue because all parties concerned do not have the concept of forgiveness in their texts?

Enough for now.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-01 10:21:01 AM


DJ,
"My point is that 1930s Toronto had no black threat, no threat from Islam and people were free to associate and discriminate on a number of levels. Why? It was an overwhelmingly WASP society. And while Islam has many positive traits, family values etc., it is largely a non-European religion. My point, simply, is that it is better to live separately. Then you won't have to lock your car or even house door."

Point taken. For clarification, my focus is on the fact that these problem(s ...plural) are already here by either design or blunder.

Clearly, those who expound on the glories of multicultural bliss have not thought things through. They have no answers as to how to decide who gets in when a danger lurks amongst the good ones. Once here, they have no idea how to deal with the trouble makers without harming the good ones. It seems that we can't even agree on who the trouble-makers are.

I can recall so many times how people would point to the US crack epidemic and say "that can't happen here." How ghettos could not happen here. How gang shootings could not happen here. Until recently, it was terrorism. The smug air of superiority is thick and blinds them to pretend their is no problem.

I often wonder whether the problems we face now were caused by design on the parts of those of the more "collectivist ilk." I wonder if they knew then that these problems would occur and would force society to begin restricting liberties as the only response to control the raging mobs and prevent internecine street battles. Given the "collectivist" mindset and their support for some of the most brutal and despical ideologies, what better way to get control all for themselves.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-08-01 10:23:06 AM


Lady makes some good points. No matter what, I have NEVER (at least ME) seen Jewish people in Canada be "nationalist", "antagonistic", etc. Always a quiet dignity in the way they go about their support for Israel. I think they could be a great model for some other communities - I have Canadian-born friends of Serbian, Croatian and Greek backgrounds that have been known to sing their parents' (!!) nationalist songs, usually meant to stir up passions with another (enemy) group.

I'll be honest - I'm not always a big supporter of Israel's tactics and policies (including now). But I defy anyone to decry the conduct of Jews living in Canada during any crisis related to Israel.

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-08-01 10:25:13 AM


I like Set You Free's last post. A lot of perspective there.

My own personal viewpoint is that the land in that area has always been a perpetual tuf-of-war. If the Arbas had a powerful sponsor, they would undoubtedly annihilate the Jews. Israel's approach is a little different - they want to hang onto what's theirs (plus a little more). They have the most powerful backer, so there's no way they can lose (militarily). Rockets will never be able to compete with an air force, ships, tanks, etc. The only solution EVER will be a political solution that is forced and binding on both parties.

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-08-01 10:34:14 AM


John,
"The only solution EVER will be a political solution that is forced and binding on both parties. "

Yes.

It's the "force" part that troubles me. The world just doesn't seem to be there and I certainly don't trust the UN to do it consistently or fairly.

It would also require force to stop those parties not directly involved (hi Iran, how's the nuke thingy going?) to stop fomenting trouble.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-08-01 10:53:17 AM


H2O,
There would definitely have to be the threat of strong economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation on any "outside" parties that try to spoil things.

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-08-01 11:08:47 AM


Set You Free,

I am not privy to the demonstration you referenced, so I cannot adress that in particular.

But, when it comes to Orthodox Jews, in general, there are many different groups.

One group in particular, an ultra orthodox -- the Naturei Carta, which consists of maybe, at maximum, 500 members. Their position is not a political position, per se, but theological, in that they think that a Jewish state could only be created with a Messiah. They have a bizarre belief, and do not support the State of Israel. They do not believe that the fact that Jews have returned to israel, in the numbers as they have, from all over the world, is a miracle. Were these the people who were demonstrating against Israel in NYC? That would explain things.

And then again, Jews would be upset about the losses of life, on the Lebanese side, whether or not the reason was due to the terrorists placeing of missile launchers on, next to and in buildings, where there are children and women. The enmy knows that Jews can be exploited for their feelings, in this regard.

But back to the naturei carta. In any population, that adhers to variety, some wierdos will fill a niche, no matter how unpopular, valid or verifiable it may be.

Today, Jews and Israelis of all stars and stripes, are pretty much united in the struggle against the terrorists.

Politically, the parties are pretty much in line as well.

The judicial system appears to working around the clock, to deal with matters of importance, such as the complaints, such as have been seen in relation to Qana and all the other matters, which require investigation. That is a conclusion I have coe to from what I have read, consistently, from site to site.

So, when you talk about Orthodox Jews, you have to keep in mind the plurality, even in that 4% or so, of the population, of which you have inquired.

And these folks are not the ultra Orthodox, who once again, are an even smaller percentage of the population, and also diverse within their ranks.

When you talk about any group, keep in mind freedom of thought, liberty and expression is a fundamental principle on which all Jews have pride. Orthodox Jews just tend to be more modest than the rest of society.

And none of these folks are terrorists or endorse any form of terrorism. Although the Naturei folks have been rather stupid, and shaken hands with some people, who are not unlike a few Liberals we have known.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 11:45:11 AM


I agree with you, Lady, that there are, as you put it, many Muslims who have had success in identifying themselves as Muslims who do not buy into the death cult mentality. In my opinion, people who are unable to distinguish between them and the enemy are themselves enemies of western civilization.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 11:45:34 AM


I will believe these 'Muslims' are truley moderate when they disavow the verses in the Koran and Hadith that the Jihadis are acting on to destroy western civilization.

The 'moderates' disavow the terrorists but say nothing about these verses.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 11:59:33 AM


How do you know that?

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 12:02:28 PM


Prove me wrong.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 12:03:15 PM


Why should I? If you wish to assert a hypothesis, then justifying your contention is your responsibility, not your interlocutor's.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 12:14:11 PM


Wrong, Vito. While it cannot be proved that something which didn't happen, didn't happen, the disavowal of verses for Jihad didn't happen, thereby proving a negative.

I challenge you to demonstrate that something positive did happen. You cannot.

Where are the disavowals from 'moderates of the verses enjoining them to Jihad?

There aren't any disavowals from 'moderates'.

You, Vito, claim there are 'moderates' in Isalm. I say there aren't.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 12:22:38 PM


The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 12:27:13 PM


"The only solution EVER will be a political solution that is forced and binding on both parties."

The force required is the force Israel currently holds. The solution is a Palestinian diaspora. No Arabs in Israeli, no threa to the Jews. An even larger threat is impending if Israel, like the West does not act. It's demograghics. At current birth rates Israeli Arab will be the majority in Israel by 2048.

Robert Locke suggests the only solution for Israel and at some point western nations with large unassimilable hostile populations living within, is non-genocidal ethnic cleansing -

"Moreover, the central problem facing Israeli nationalism at this moment is the Palestinian question—the presence, within the borders of the national state, of a large, unassimilable, alienated population. Because of current mass immigration, the U.S. and all the historic nation-states of Europe are beginning to face the same problem. Ultimately, they may have to consider some version of the same solution."

http://www.vdare.com/locke/palestinian_problem.htm

Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-01 12:29:40 PM


Asking one to justify one's contention is not a fallacy. Indeed, Speller, it is you who is committing the fallacy, by contending that lack of proof is proof of lack. Trying to turn your assertion around into in attack on me simply further weakens your argument.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 12:51:46 PM


Where are the disavowals from 'moderates' of the verses enjoining them to Jihad?

There aren't any disavowals from 'moderates'.

You, Vito, claim there are 'moderates' in Isalm. I say there aren't.

You give links to a number of 'moderate Muslim' sites on the other thread.

The Free Muslisms Coalition:
http://www.freemuslims.org/

Muslims Against Terrorism:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Where are the disavowals of the verses in the Koran and Hadith which incite terrorist to Jihad?

There aren't any disavowals and there aren't any 'moderates'.

Like you, Vito, they just play with words.

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 1:01:42 PM


I'm done with you, Speller. You're the kind of person who will keep arguing with the door long after the horse has left the barn. I shan't bother the good folks here at the Shotgun by further attempting to enlighten you, you are beyond hope.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 1:09:34 PM


Viti,

Speller asked for a legitimate piece of information that he deemed necessary to make and further the debate and narrow to further the arguement, and you failed to show facts.

You further used verbosity to attempt to hide away from the position of responsibility; being the one who has to show proof, whether positive or negative in nature.

Since there cannot be a blanket statement, that applies to all, without being biggotted in the first place, you have denied the debate a chance to go further, by your claim, therefore denying Muslims the opportunity of expressing plurality of thought and expression in relation ton their own religion.

If Speller is wrong, you owe it to the audience, to prove him wrong.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 2:00:06 PM


A very common group of Muslims in Canada are called Ismailis. They are a different denomination from the traditional Sunnis and Shi'ites. They follow the Aga Khan, are originally from India (though most directly hail from East Africa).

They often smoke and drink, wear modest dress (i.e. skirts, pants, not very often are they in hijab). Sunnis may not even consider them Muslims. However, they go to mosques and study the Koran. I don't believe they ever talk about "jihad" or "obliterating Jews" or "death to America". I would call them MODERATE muslims.

So there you go.

In the same way, fundamentalist Christians (born-again evangelicals, full practicing Catholics, full-practicing Eastern Orthodox or Coptic) may be seen as NON-MODERATE, United Church may be seen as MODERATE Christians.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who fully observe the Sabbath (i.e. no work is done, no power is used) may be seen as NON-MODERATE Jews. Reform Jews may be seen as MODERATE.

So, I submit to you Ismaili Muslims - a truly MODERATE form of Islam.

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-08-01 2:21:55 PM


Lady, Speller made a comment, and I asked him how he knew that? Instead of explaining how, or saying that it was simply his opinion and so it did not need supporting evidence, either of which would have been fine with me, he attempted to turn his dilemma into an attack on my logic, during which he himself got the logic exactly backwards. Since there has been no charge against my account, I owe precisely nothing.

And for the record, I cultivate a healthy vocabulary because I enjoy it. If you don't, you're always welcome to scroll past my comments, I try to keep them relatively short and on topic, so that shouldn't be too difficult. But if you think that my enjoyment of the richness of the English language is an attempt to hide away from a position of responsibility, then you are making a mistake.

Thus, if you wish to question me on my comments, you will find that I always take full responsibility for them. However, I assume no responsibility for anyone else's comments.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 2:30:27 PM


I really don't think that "blanket statements" serve anyone. Ironically, one of the biggest concerns about Preston Manning was his denomination of Christianity (and likewise with Stockwell Day) because they were seen to be Evangelical Christans (Christians who believe that they interpret the Bible literally - who will QUOTE YOU SCRIPTURE that bans gay relations and other "sinful" acts, and who might create domestic policy based on these teachings). They were not seen as MODERATE Christians. If they had been mainstream Protestant or not full-practising Catholics, this issue would not have been raised.

So invoking the concept of scripture vs moderate behaviour can occur in Christianity as well. Would you want to (or could you) live under Christian rule that is faithful to Scripture?? I don't think many people could.

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-08-01 2:30:37 PM


"Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who fully observe the Sabbath (i.e. no work is done, no power is used) may be seen as NON-MODERATE Jews. Reform Jews may be seen as MODERATE.
So, I submit to you Ismaili Muslims - a truly MODERATE form of Islam."
Posted by: John Leningrad

Daniel Pearle tried to pull that 'non-practising Jew/I'm not a Jew cause I don't practise' crap and after being forced to incant, "I am a Jew, my father was a Jew." Zarqawi handed him his head.

Islam means submission. Those who submit to allah are called Muslims.

If you don't submit to allah you aren't relabeled a 'moderate' Muslim, you aren't a Muslim at all.

Let it not be forgotten that the Saudi Arabians control Mecca and Medina. They are Salafi/Wahhabi Muslims and every Muslim must do the Hajj.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 2:41:07 PM


John L, yes I could live under Preston Manning as my PM. Are you saying you couldn’t because he’s a Christian?

I might add (I’m not sure if this is what you intended) I think Christians or Jews or Hindus or atheists should explain why they have come to conclusions about their values in logical way without quoting the scriptures.

For example, I know Christians (me) who are in favour of gay marriage and I know atheists who are against it. We can have a debate about it without quoting scriptures or some obscure secular humanist … ;>)

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-01 2:49:30 PM


Just so, John, both comments.

Some of the moderate muslims of whose acquaintance I have the pleasure are quite convinced that the undergirding forces behind the phenomena we are observing is the long running war between the Sunnis and Shi'ites, and that the terrorists are a result of them not controlling their own extremists because they are too pre-occupied by each other.

I find that at a minimum an interesting hypothesis. But unlike some people, I don't know it all, so I don't know whether or not it's correct.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 2:51:17 PM


Big leap there, Nomdenet. John said that Manning had a problem with the electorate related to his professed beliefs, and he said that most of us wouldn't want to live under a strict interpretation of evangelical scripture, both of which I think are correct. He did not say that he couldn't live under a PM Manning, perhaps because no prime minister could get such a strict interpretation into law without being defeated by a commons revolt.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 2:57:21 PM


John,

I do not believe that the depth of the practice of a religion, is the same as a depth of the practice of an ideology.

People can be very observant, or devout, and never against the mores of a westernized nation.

The note on extremism, as to do with what acts a person is willing to do, and will do, and has done, for the sake of their religion.

I know some very devout Christians, who would never hurt anyone. And yet if you took your measure, and applied it to them, just because they are devout, would mean you would classify them as extremists.

The degree to which someone believes, is not what makes a person an extremist, or not. The material that qualifies them as those who are inclined to be terrorists, is their ideology. When mixed with a particular religion, the mixture becomes much worse. People will do just about anything for their religion, when manipulated, that they would never do for money, given the same person.

This is not to say that money does not exchange hands, when terrorists kill people, as we know that to be false. There are some who have made billions, while others lives have been wasted, like mud.

Furthermore, if you look at the different religions, in the context of doctrines espoused today, a devout Christian does not espouse terrorism. And an observant Muslim also does not necessarily espouse terrorism. Devout Christians, have, in the past, done violence in the name of their religion, such as killed women in the hundreds of thousands.

It is interesting to note, that when a religion does get out of hand, women are extremely manipulated.

In religions where the devout are devoted, and the observant are respectful fo the choices of women, and their needs, that the society in which they live, tend to be westernized.

And yet, it has never been demonstrated, to any level of satisfaction, to me, why a woman today, would choose to don a burka. Perhaps it has more to do with their power to manipulate men, into commiting attrocities, than men are willing to admit in the first place.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 3:58:15 PM


Lady, you make many good points. Two things, however: "hurt" does not have to be physical. Therefore, two things that most devout Christians would be "hurtful" in: depriving gay people their right to be married because it doesn't fit their idea of "traditional"; depriving a woman the right to choose because of THEIR definition of when life begins.

(As a sidenote, I believe in the right to choose and gay marriage).

Speller, with all due respect, you didn't really respond to my statement that Ismaili Muslims are MODERATE in their behaviour (as opposed to the more fervent followers). I will repeat, Ismailis follow the Aga Khan (as Catholics follow the Pope) but their general adherence to Muhammed and Allah is the same (as Catholics still put Jesus and God above the Pope). They do not espouse jihad and their women do not wear burkas.

I would say as Muslims they are more moderate than evangelicals are as Christians.

Nomdenet: I did not say that I could NOT live under Manning as PM (I'm glad he never was but I digress). I said that there was a FEAR in many quarters, including amongst most moderate Christians, that his policy would be influenced by his beliefs (or that the evangelical and strongly Catholic lobbies would have a heavy influence - leading to the banning of certain civil liberties that Canadians now take for granted (abortion rights) or would never have been passed (gay marriage)). The same would have been for Stockwell Day. Harper has done well to keep his religious beliefs off the table.

The US is a prime example of the religious right having an undue influence of a President who has SOMEWHAT the same beliefs (there's debate as to whether Bush is a full-blown Evangelical (i.e. Pentacostal) - more likely he's a Baptist).

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-08-01 6:33:11 PM


John L my guess is that you don’t like the dissenting ideas on SSM and pro-life - period.
Like you, I happen to be a social Liberal. I'm also a Christian. But I regularly have debates with atheists and others who are dead set against gay marriage and easy abortions. It’s a diverse world and things don’t just line up neatly around religion.

In other words, I don’t think SSM is a right. I think it’s a value. Society has to decide for SSM or against it depending on what kind of a society they want to be, religion is a red herring.

When people don’t like Bush’s position or Manning's position they simply call it the darned “religious right” fanatics in lieu of debating the issue. It becomes emotional instead of logical.

Saying the "relgious right has an undue influence on .." Bush is like saying the teachers unions have an undue influence on the Democrats. Sure. That's where the money comes from. So? That's life, the parties have to duke it out because every percentage point counts.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-01 7:12:51 PM


For the record the matters of gay v. homosexual and abortion v. liberty are off topic for this thread. Moreover, the thread is nearly dead I suspect (not that I haven't been wrong before), so expending one's resources on that debate here would tend to be less that optimal, I would suggest. Personally, I'll save my well-considered opinions on those matters for a relevant thread, so they may be of some value in context (yeah, you wish, Vitruvius).

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 7:27:42 PM


You're right V , we must police ourselves because Ezra won't ... ;>)

I gotta run anyway, John L , I hope my tone didn't sound rude, it was intended that way.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-01 7:36:56 PM


Like it or not, once the first nuclear weapon detonates in an American port you can bet many of your predictions will come true.

Posted by: ferrethouse | 2006-08-01 8:00:47 PM


DJ asked: "The state already regulates thought. How is it any different?"

It isn't really. And you won't find me defending any of those other laws you mention that regulate thought, either.

Posted by: Kevin Libin | 2006-08-02 12:20:18 AM


* Right Girl,whenever someone takes a public stand their will always be some lound opinions for and against. HEY-even the greatest goodness and top Spiritual leader Jesus Christ recieves lound opinions for and against too.

Posted by: Larry | 2006-08-02 3:01:05 AM


John Leningrad,

You have hurt my feeling terribly.

Shame on you!

And I am certain this fact will keep you awake at night. Perhaps even, in a constant swet!

In order to enhance your nightly nightmares, I will give you this photo, to place on your walls, so you can really visualize the fundamentalist Lady, telling you off, and giving you a jolly good spanking, for twisting the discussion beyond the purvue of the current debate.

http://www.electricferret.com/callisto/cal_jes3.jpg

And I will reiterate, the difference between an observant Jew and a devout Christian, are theological. Neither will kill me, or even eachother for that matter, for walking down the street in the manner to which I am, or they are accustomed, be it arms covered, or arms expossed. That goes the same for gays as well. And yet, as a Jewish Lady, if I were living in a Muslim nation, under shariah, and dressed to even the highest Jewish modesty, or even highest Christian modesty attire for that matter, I would be beaten, stoned and/or killed.

Even though you say hurt is more than just physical, I'll take the psychological torment of having read your silly quip over stoning to death any time!

And, in case you have not learned yet, gays PERIOD are executed under shariah. And that is the belief of Hisbollah, Hamas and ALL the terrorist groups who espouse shariah as their fundamental tenent!

Tell me, that does not hurt!

So, which would you prefer, being with people who are not gay, and prefer not to be gay, or people who would sooner kill you and your gay friends, rather than look at you?

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-02 9:49:42 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.