MANIFESTO!
selene1022
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now
faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to
religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal
opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of
Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the
struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by
arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations
nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global
struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and
frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form
battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world.
But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies
the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a
reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism
wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of
domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of
all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to
oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that
men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to
equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for
cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out
of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept
which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of
its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a
critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses
and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our
century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
selene1022
usual suspects:
This manifesto should be rejected as missing the main issue, U.S.
imperialism
at the forefront of trying to suppress any forms of anti-imperialist
opposition, including such opposition coming from various Islamic
forces. It is also a
provocation for more attacks on Muslims throughout the world, just as
the
Danish cartoons were. -- Neal Resnikoff
....not only are they astonishingly stupid, they're dangerous. Like I
said before, remember the scene in that corny movie "Independence Day"
with the idiots holding up the "welcome Aliens" signs? Come to find
out, that very building, the Library Tower, was targeted by Al Qaeda
for an airplane strike.
Martha Bridegam
The manifesto is, yes, offensive in its current wording, but
for a different reason; "Islamism" should should be
broadened to read "fundamentalist religious extremism". If
you think I'm talking about Baptists, consider the harm
done, for example, by Hindu nationalists.
/M
selene1022
people into sky scrapers in the name of god. And Hindu nationalists
aren't exporting their battles to the rest of the world... Hindu
nationalists would also be a much less potent force if not for radical
islamists in Pakistan and in India.
Of course religious fundamentalism is not a good thing, but Islam is a
special case that MUST be addressed, and trying to water it down by
making it one of many is dishonest and an escape from reality.
Martha Bridegam
If the problem is not a particular faith so much as the
fanatical expression thereof, then it follows that the
political emphasis must be on the dangers of fanaticism.
/M
selene1022
but "jihad" has always been an important part of the faith--as a quick
read of the Koran will show. It's not honest to pretend otherwise.The
seeds of what is being currently expressed by the fanatics can most
certainly be found in the history of Islam. The problem is, islamists
are taking what was written in the 7th ce. as literal truth, and are
following it to the letter. You can't just blame "expression", and
winnow out the good part that sounds nice in the 21st. century from the
bad, and accuse them of being "unfaithful" when they can point to
verses in the Koran that say otherwise.
The same could be said of the nutcases who go around saying "God hates
fags." Now, some would say that's not a true expression of the
judeo-christian faith. But if you look at scripture, it's very harsh
on sodomy, and unequivocal in stating that it is a grave sinful act..
So who is being the most honest? Those who want to stick to what the
bible says, or those who want to pretend otherwise?
Adam
"selene1022" <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141251233....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
not see it. And i can hardly be bothered anymore. But anyway. Danish papers
publish cartoons of Mohammed to highlight the self-censorship of Danish
society/leftish politicos in the face of Islamist threats of violence and
death. They say " I will say what i want regardless of Islamofascists ". God
it's so patently obvious to anyone but leftists that these fucking medieval
retards aim to restrict freedom of speech because to offend Mohammed is
tantamount to serial killing - punishable by death. I will say what the fuck
I like and if you dont fucking like it fuck off to Saudi Arabia you fucking
psuedo democratic bell ends.
Pods
selene1022
programed to think that tolerance and respect for those who are
different (no matter how different, or whether or not they treat the
beliefs and culture of others with with respect) is the only civilized
way to act. The problem now is that too many people are confusing
tolerance with enabling a deadly enemy that is on the verge of throwing
the entire world into chaos.
Some things that must never be tolerated.
selene1022
muslim) intellectuals who signed on...And, lets add, Ayaan Hirsi and
Rushdie, and perhaps a few others on the list have been threateded with
death for what they've said and written.
Presentations:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from somilian origin, is member of Dutch parliement,
member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which
caused the assasination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in november
2004, she lives under police protection.
Chahla Chafiq
Chahla Chafiq, writer from iranian origin, exiled in France is a
novelist and an essayist. She's the author of "Le nouvel homme
islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels
such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005).
Caroline Fourest
Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties
against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference
books on « laicité » and fanatism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à
l'épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta
Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq
Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She receieved
the National prize of laicité in 2005.
Bernard-Henri Lévy
French philosoph, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century
« ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the
author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L'Idéologie française, La
Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo.
Irshad Manji
Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally
best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call
for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She
speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en
Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d'origine
indienne à l'âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses
émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès.
Mehdi Mozaffari
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from iranian origin and exiled in Denmark,
is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such
as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and
Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations.
Maryam Namazie
Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the
Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations; and 2005
winner of the National Secular Society's Secularist of the Year award.
Taslima Nasreen
Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending
women and minorities brought her in trouble with a comittee of
integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as «
apostate »
Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight's
Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He
has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the
Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany's Author of the Year Award, the
European Union's Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for
Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for
European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et
Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the
president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into
over 40 languages.
Philippe Val
Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who
have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity
with the danish citizens targeted by islamists).
Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq , author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam :
Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present
Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and
historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book.
Antoine Sfeir :
Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir choosed french nationality to
live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is
the director of Les cahiers de l'Orient and has published several
reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d'Allah (2001) et
Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme
(2005).
Thanks to Agora and InstaPundit for the pointer.
ROBBIE
Quite so.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
> Don't be so harsh on MAB
It's even harder for MAB to deal with - for obvious reasons.
ROBBIE
selene1022
Ever watch one of those smug Islamist sheikhs spewing venom toward the
United States and its allies-inevitably justified by a list of
fatuous historical "grievances" dating back to the First Crusade-and
wonder "When is someone going to call him on his bull****?"
Well, someone finally has.
Her name is Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born psychologist, currently living
and practicing in Los Angeles, who's found her way onto the Aljazeera
airwaves and is fast becoming every Islamist cleric's worst nightmare.
Here she is confronting Islamist Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli, an Islamist
cleric and teacher at Al-Azhar University in Cairo:
Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a
clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between
two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that
belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the
21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness,
between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and
rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between
democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the
one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a
clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat
them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of
civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a
clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and
ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it
not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss
this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression.
The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The
Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they
believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the
people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others
until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this
clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must
reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls
for takfir and fighting the infidels.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs.
What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other
people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls
them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the
Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he
calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that
they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book,
they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you
have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking.
What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath,"
or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your
religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I
do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to
believe in it.
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?
Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being
who does not believe in the supernatural...
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in
rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and
the Koran...
Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't
throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other
people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the
Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let
people have their beliefs.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust),
and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with
their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity
owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries
to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the
world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have
not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have
not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew
protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues
into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque,
kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their
beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying
embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask
themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that
humankind respect them.
Martha Bridegam
> Talking to Martha about these things is pointless. She doesn't/can't/will
> not see it. And i can hardly be bothered anymore.
"Anymore"? But I feel I hardly know you...
<snip>
> I will say what the fuck
> I like and if you dont fucking like it fuck off to Saudi Arabia you fucking
> psuedo democratic bell ends.
>
> Pods
>
>
Young man (Harrumph! I'm getting old enough to say that
now...), everyone here will defend your absolute right to
say what you like, but part of the free-speech deal is that
anyone who disagrees with you is allowed to say so. Without
hightailing it off to anywhere afterwards.
Thank you for "bell ends." Always nice to increase one's
word power. Guessed it might have to do with trouser ends
but in fact it's about the other end of the trousers:
http://www.whatdoesthatmean.ca/node/1906
/M
Martha Bridegam
> Maybe this will help Martha....
You're all so solicitous for my immortal soul, it's quite
affecting.
Apparently you haven't quite understood me.
I oppose the same horrors you so enjoy listing. Of course I
do, and you know I do, and I know you do. (We're a very
knowledgeable newsgroup.) It's just that the civilized way
to answer such atrocities is by opposing fundamentalist
zealotry in general, not by opposing its manifestation only
in one particular faith.
Some nasty ideas begin to develop whenever you single out
one faith to anathematize. Eric Muller has some thoughtful
notes on that subject at
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/02/right_genocide.html
.
/M
selene1022
critics here listed are...MUSLIMS, or those raised in the faith.
They've earned the right, often risking their lives to do so.
Martha Bridegam
Maybe they have. So?
/M
selene1022
starts putting bounties on writers and encourages the Sisters of Mercy
to stap on suicide belts, we'll talk.
In the meanwhile, let's all hope and pray that some misguided jehovah's
witness doesn't stick a knife in Dr. Wafa Sultan for her brave stance.
So indeed.
Joe Fineman
> Thank you for "bell ends." Always nice to increase one's word
> power. Guessed it might have to do with trouser ends but in fact
> it's about the other end of the trousers:
> http://www.whatdoesthatmean.ca/node/1906
What do you suppose Brits do to them to make them shiny?
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Having a car is like having a second body -- one that is :||
||: always sick. :||
selene1022
shiny?
Nevermind, I don't want to know.
Adam
> Adam wrote:
>
>> Talking to Martha about these things is pointless. She
>> doesn't/can't/will not see it. And i can hardly be bothered anymore.
>
> "Anymore"? But I feel I hardly know you...
Not you specifically, but Dhimmis in general. You need to wake up and fight
for you're freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmis
>
> <snip>
>
>> I will say what the fuck
>> I like and if you dont fucking like it fuck off to Saudi Arabia you
>> fucking psuedo democratic bell ends.
>>
>> Pods
>>
>>
>
> Young man (Harrumph! I'm getting old enough to say that
> now...), everyone here will defend your absolute right to
> say what you like
Unless it upsets some Muslims ?
, but part of the free-speech deal is that
> anyone who disagrees with you is allowed to say so. Without
> hightailing it off to anywhere afterwards.
>
> Thank you for "bell ends." Always nice to increase one's
> word power. Guessed it might have to do with trouser ends
> but in fact it's about the other end of the trousers:
> http://www.whatdoesthatmean.ca/node/1906
>
> /M
Divided by a common language, hon. You miss the intricate subtleties of bell
end. It's not you're fault, but to a Brit it conveys the appropriate amount
of contempt and levity.
Pods
Adam
>
>> It's not you're fault
>
>
>> conveys the appropriate amount
>> of contempt and levity.
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry
What are you trying to say Henry ?
Pods
Adam
>> for you're freedoms.
>
>
>> It's not you're fault
>
>
>> conveys the appropriate amount
>> of contempt and levity.
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry
Henry - for fucks sake Henry, i'd be pissed off if I was so named.
Pods
ROBBIE
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:cOJNf.36490$Jd.2...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> selene1022 wrote:
> > Maybe this will help Martha....
>
> You're all so solicitous for my immortal soul, it's quite
> affecting.
>
> Apparently you haven't quite understood me.
>
> I oppose the same horrors you so enjoy listing
De haut en bas. Lurking behind that is probably a little mental chess move
which says: 'these people are so unseemly - they can't be right because they
have a *pornographic* interest in bla bla bla'...
. Of course I
> do, and you know I do, and I know you do. (We're a very
> knowledgeable newsgroup.) It's just that the civilized way
> to answer such atrocities is by opposing fundamentalist
> zealotry in general
You see that's where you reveal that I have 'quite understood' you. Your
dogma prevents you from publicly making the only rational conclusions
available - so you hide behind platitudinous generalisation. It's an
abdication of reason.
ROBBIE
selene1022
posted calling for a "holocaust" of europe's 20 million muslims was
written by some obscure francoist nutter, (nothing new there) while the
"offensive" manifesto was signed by BHL, one of the world's top Jewish
public intellectuals and a champion of human rights. And, let's add,
that the islamists are a) denying that the Jewish holocaust ever
happened and b) calling for the destruction of Israel.
A rather lazy, shoddy attempt at moral leveling...and I'm still
stunned by that "SO". Martha can't be that far gone.
ROBBIE
Let's hope not. I think the Islam issue is the line in the sand thing - the
fruitcake left can't see it and if they do they fear it will have a domino
effect on the rest of their dogma.
ROBBIE
Adam
> selene1022 wrote:
>> Maybe this will help Martha....
>
> You're all so solicitous for my immortal soul, it's quite
> affecting.
>
> Apparently you haven't quite understood me.
>
> I oppose the same horrors you so enjoy listing. Of course I
> do, and you know I do, and I know you do. (We're a very
> knowledgeable newsgroup.) It's just that the civilized way
> to answer such atrocities is by opposing fundamentalist
> zealotry in general, not by opposing its manifestation only
> in one particular faith.
As we all know, in this knowledgable newsgroup, Buddhists are not blowing up
Tibet. God, I wish they would, just to validate Martha.
Joe Fineman
> And the $ 64,000.00 question--how do you know the brits make them
> shiny?
The Web site says so. True, it does not actually say they make them
shiny. Or even that all Brits have shiny ones. Maybe some Brits are
born with shiny ones, and only they are entitled to the term.
I spent most of a year in Britain but failed to gather any evidence on
the matter.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: "Carmella, shame on you! Your dress is dirty!" :||
||: "Yeah, but it's only dirty on the outside." :||
selene1022
Martha Bridegam
> ...
>...and I'm still
> stunned by that "SO". ...
I'll try again:
"So," a group of doubtless very brave dissident moderates
within a faith have every right and reason to protest
against extreme expressions of their own faith. They have
earned the right to say such things.
Their compelling stories and statements do not, however,
eclipse a parallel question: whether *everyone* is morally
required to single out that particular bunch of cruel
extremists as "the" bad ones, as though one wrong being "the
worst" deprived all other wrongs in this world of meaning.
I think conversation here keeps breaking down at points like
this because we disagree about whether evils exist on a
continuum. This is not the same idea as moral relativism.
Moral relativism posits that all fervently held beliefs are
equally valid. The notion of the continuum is that evil
exists and can be defined and that it exists to varying
extents in all people and societies, and that evil can't be
ended once and for all, only diminished through steady
effort. In this view, the need to recognize and avoid the
tops of slippery slopes, for example, arises *alongside --
not to the exclusion of -- but alongside* the need to oppose
the big obvious runaway-freight-train wrongs.
All cruelties and fanaticisms are bad. Some do more harm
than others. Some take more fortitude to oppose than others.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who is the perpetrator. Wrongs
that cause "only" a few deaths are still quite real to the
dead in question. Even if one wrong is worse, two don't make
a right. Nor does one give you the right to ignore the other.
Evil can be experimentally created by reproducing an
unhealthy society within one building on an otherwise benign
college campus, and even then, it's still recognizably evil.
At Prof. Zimbardo's Web site,
http://www.zimbardo.com/zimbardo.html , click "Publications"
at right, then "downloads" above the central window, then
scroll down to the 1973 Department of the Navy report, "A
Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison." It
describes the notorious "prison experiment" in which
mentally healthy students who were randomly assigned to act
as "prisoners" and "guards" very soon began to act out the
worst stereotypes of their respective roles. There's one
point on the continuum.
Another point on the continuum: This, for example, is real
enough and begins to set an unpleasant pattern reminiscent
of Margaret Atwood's "Gilead," but it hasn't hurt anyone to
date:
http://tsuredzuregusa.blogspot.com/2006/03/american-taliban-town.html
Another data point: the religious p*groms in India have
killed quite a few people -- not Americans, but still
people, you understand:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Arundhati_Roy/Fascism's_Footprint_India.html
...and Srebr*nica, enough said...
...and so on further into the deep dreadful atrocities that
you and I can name in unison, all of which we would also
have to spell here with asterisks to avoid the attention of
the monsters who think they were not wrong. We could have a
contest some time: who can recite more names and particulars
of prison camps and hellholes and summary executions in more
countries? But naming those awful names wouldn't prove
anything and even reflexively starting to list some of them
in my head while I write this feels like disrespect for the
dead.
Do you think we could agree that fanaticism is the enemy of
all things humane on this poor earth, and that radical
Isl*mic fanaticism is currently doing a lot of harm? Could
we further agree that it does not diminish the importance of
that particular harm to add that it is not the only harm in
this world?
You will want to answer again with, "How dare you compare x
with y?" The answer is, I'm not comparing. I'm listing
consecutively. Evil is unfortunately not a zero-sum game. It
doesn't exist in a finite quantity such that evil
accumulated in one place reduces available quantities of
evil elsewhere. Sad to say, the six billion of us are making
the evil pie higher all the time.
Rgds,
/M
ROBBIE
Sarky. Why am unsurprised...
:
>
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Arundhati_Roy/Fascism's_Footprint_India.ht
So we is ALL monsters! No wonder you dig Orwell so much: fearing the
internal monster...
My conclusion to what you have written is that it is EM Forster stuff:
elegant evasions from a comfortable position. I mean what a lecture of the
bleeding obvious! You think we is all knuckle-draggers who believe that
God's man Booosh can take evil out the world? Well sure gosh darn shucks
thanks for explaining that cain't be done, Marth, ah'm so glad we have
outreach like you. I dunno where I would have been without that.
ROBBIE
selene1022
BRILLIANT.
And a link to Arundhati Roy, the darling of the anti-globalist set who
thinks that the real problem is evil American empire, for good measure.
I was wrong ROB, she is that far gone.
Martha Bridegam
> "elegant evasions from a comfortable position"
>
> BRILLIANT.
Goes for us all -- anyone who spends time chattering
morbidly in a salon while real death goes on outside.
...C'est l'Ennui!—l'oeil chargé d'un pleur involontaire,
Il rêve d'échafauds en fumant son houka.
Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
—Hypocrite lecteur,—mon semblable,—mon frère!
>
> And a link to Arundhati Roy, the darling of the anti-globalist set who
> thinks that the real problem is evil American empire, for good measure.
>
> I was wrong ROB, she is that far gone.
>
Selene, I cannot understand why you and the inspirers of
your rhetoric do not want the support of people who are
horrified by the advocacy of specific religious hatreds. I
can't believe you have forgotten your twentieth-century and
medieval history.
/M
ROBBIE
> selene1022 wrote:
> > "elegant evasions from a comfortable position"
> >
> > BRILLIANT.
>
> Goes for us all -- anyone who spends time chattering
> morbidly in a salon while real death goes on outside.
Ah - back to 'authenticity'. I'm a fucking sight closer to this lunacy than
you are!
And our 'evasion' is that we're specific?
ROBBIE
selene1022
mean that mine is.
How dare you quote Baudelaire to me in such a ridiculous way.
You should hope to ever do as much for your fellow man as I have in my
life. Not that I care to go around appearing holier than thou about it.
I chose to do what I wanted to do, and I enjoyed it. I wish I could do
more, and when I come to a place in my life where I don't have the
responsibility of children to raise, I'm sure I will.
And as for Ms. Roy, why would anyone care to have her on their side?
Oh, and in case you've forgotten, I have an MA, but I suppose that
since it wasn't from an Ivy league school that doesn't count in your
book.
ROBBIE
> selene1022 wrote:
> > "elegant evasions from a comfortable position"
> >
> > BRILLIANT.
>
> Goes for us all -- anyone who spends time chattering
> morbidly in a salon while real death goes on outside.
>
> ...C'est l'Ennui!—l'oeil chargé d'un pleur involontaire,
> Il rêve d'échafauds en fumant son houka.
> Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
> —Hypocrite lecteur,—mon semblable,—mon frère!
>
I can't speak French.
ROBBIE
selene1022
the web.
selene1022
C'est l'Ennui! -l'oeil chargé d'un pleur involontaire,
Il rêve d'échafauds en fumant son houka.
Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
-Hypocrite lecteur,-mon semblable,-mon frère!
It's Boredom! - his eye brimming with spontaneous tear
He dreams of the gallows in the haze of his hookah.
You know him, reader, this delicate monster,
Hypocritical reader, my likeness, my brother!
I think it's a case of confusing artistic genius generated by a true
enemy of religion (Baudelaire) with a Tula and Davidesque "cosmic funk."
Martha Bridegam
> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:GnmOf.65744$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> selene1022 wrote:
>>> "elegant evasions from a comfortable position"
>>>
>>> BRILLIANT.
>> Goes for us all -- anyone who spends time chattering
>> morbidly in a salon while real death goes on outside.
>
> Ah - back to 'authenticity'. I'm a fucking sight closer to this lunacy than
> you are!
Snipped the Baudelaire, I see.
>
> And our 'evasion' is that we're specific?
>
> ROBBIE
>
>
Actually, yes. You're avoiding the implications of the
general principle.
/M
Martha Bridegam
We've all served our time or we wouldn't be quite so
knowledgable as we are. Some time we can compare our scars.
/M
Martha Bridegam
Sorry, who are Tula and David (or Davidesque)?
/M
Martha Bridegam
> selene1022 wrote:
>> Here's one from Wiki:
>>
>> C'est l'Ennui! -l'oeil chargé d'un pleur involontaire,
>> Il rêve d'échafauds en fumant son houka.
>> Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
>> -Hypocrite lecteur,-mon semblable,-mon frère!
>>
>>
Do you think "Ennui" might translate better as a combination
of "boredom" and "spleen," in the Jonathan Swift sense of
the latter? It can even mean something like "annoyance,"
can't it?
/M
Martha Bridegam
>>From the intro to "Les Fleurs du Mal" Bet you can find a translation on
> the web.
>
I should have posted this side-by-side translation in the
first place:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/039250.html
Though if there can be such a thing as an overheated
translation of Baudelaire, this is probably it.
/M
ROBBIE
So if we were going on about nazis in 1938 we'd be 'avoiding the
implications'?
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
You remind me of the people who say 'armchair general' if you have an
opinion on the middle east. Taken any length logically the argument doesn't
stand up. It's an evasion because you can't bring yourself to look at Islam.
Presumably you would have said in 1938 - 'ah but look at the British
Empire' - it's the kind of evasive false piety Orwell detested. And you're
doing it in aces.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
>
>
> Do you think "Ennui" might translate better as a combination
> of "boredom" and "spleen," in the Jonathan Swift sense of
> the latter? It can even mean something like "annoyance,"
> can't it?
>
> /M
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't - till I tell
you,' Humpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it
to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all'.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
>
> Sorry, who are Tula and David (or Davidesque)?
>
> /M
Selene is referring to my short fiction 'Cosmic Funk', a link to which is
posted elsewhere on this newsy.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
> selene1022 wrote:
> > Here's one from Wiki:
> >
> > C'est l'Ennui! -l'oeil chargé d'un pleur involontaire,
> > Il rêve d'échafauds en fumant son houka.
> > Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
> > -Hypocrite lecteur,-mon semblable,-mon frère!
I used to like reading Baudelaire: I used to say to a Phd linguistics
acquaintance - when I wasn't winding him up to translate Like a Rolling
Stone into old norse - if Baudelaire could have heard Brown Sugar he would
have thrown his girl poems on the fire.
ROBBIE
selene1022
what happened to them though.
Martha Bridegam
> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:oDtOf.65834$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> ROBBIE wrote:
>>> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:GnmOf.65744$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> selene1022 wrote:
>>>>> "elegant evasions from a comfortable position"
>>>>>
>>>>> BRILLIANT.
>>>> Goes for us all -- anyone who spends time chattering
>>>> morbidly in a salon while real death goes on outside.
>>> Ah - back to 'authenticity'. I'm a fucking sight closer to this lunacy
> than
>>> you are!
>> Snipped the Baudelaire, I see.
>>
>>> And our 'evasion' is that we're specific?
>>>
>>> ROBBIE
>>>
>>>
>> Actually, yes. You're avoiding the implications of the
>> general principle.
>
> So if we were going on about nazis in 1938 we'd be 'avoiding the
> implications'?
>
> ROBBIE
>
>
If the general principle is that it's imperative not to
allow oneself to resemble the evil one is fighting, even in
comparatively tiny ways, yes.
/M
Martha Bridegam
Going to share the link then?
/M
Martha Bridegam
Robbie, hon, you're the one said I was speaking from a
comfortable position. I'm just reminding you that we all are.
/M
Martha Bridegam
> Yeah. I love that portrait of his muse Jeanne painted by Manet. Tragic
> what happened to them though.
>
Why don't you tell us about it?
/M
ROBBIE
But again, you're either making a point we all know (and avoiding saying
what needs to be said by a lefty of all people), or insinuating we're as mad
and dumb as Bin Laden.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
It's above but again:
http://radiofour.tripod.com/Cosmic_Funk.htm
ROBBIE
selene1022
Scroll down, the painting is on the second row. Jeanne Duval must have
been a great beauty. A prostitute, a woman of color and the long time
lover of one of France's greatest poets.
By the way, since I am in the middle of Proust, check out his essay on
Baudelaire. At the time Proust was writing, I think seven of the poems
in "Les Fleurs du Mal" were still banned.
Martha Bridegam
> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1vGOf.44832$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> ROBBIE wrote:
>>> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:REtOf.65836$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>> Sorry, who are Tula and David (or Davidesque)?
>>>>
>>>> /M
>>> Selene is referring to my short fiction 'Cosmic Funk', a link to which
> is
>>> posted elsewhere on this newsy.
>>>
>>> ROBBIE
>>>
>>>
>> Going to share the link then?
>>
>> /M
>
> It's above but again:
>
> http://radiofour.tripod.com/Cosmic_Funk.htm
>
> ROBBIE
>
>
Don't know why I expected something different. Selene's
recommendation probably.
/M
ROBBIE
> ROBBIE wrote:
> > "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:RhxOf.27117$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >> selene1022 wrote:
> >>> >From the intro to "Les Fleurs du Mal" Bet you can find a translation
on
> >>> the web.
> >>>
> >> I should have posted this side-by-side translation in the
> >> first place:
> >> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/039250.html
> >>
> >> Though if there can be such a thing as an overheated
> >> translation of Baudelaire, this is probably it.
> >
> >
> > You remind me of the people who say 'armchair general' if you have an
> > opinion on the middle east. Taken any length logically the argument
doesn't
> > stand up. It's an evasion because you can't bring yourself to look at
Islam.
> > Presumably you would have said in 1938 - 'ah but look at the British
> > Empire' - it's the kind of evasive false piety Orwell detested. And
you're
> > doing it in aces.
> >
> > ROBBIE
> >
> >
>
> Robbie, hon,
You ourght to think of better ways than that to get me to bite.
you're the one said I was speaking from a
> comfortable position.
I said elegant *evasions* from a comfortable position - that's the point.
I'll say it again: because of your dogma you prefer to compartmentalize the
rise of militant Islamism into general trends; this releases you from
'demonizing the powerless, man'. I say that is evasive and hypocritical.
Your outlook is expressed in the editorial policy of liberal newspapers and
the BBC: rant and rave about bible bashers' bigotry for example and whistle
past the graveyard where Islamic Fascism is concerned. It's the GROSS
hypocrisy of the middle-class liberals in both our countries. In other words
when's Clooney gonna make a film about rich reds' elegant evasions about
soviet communism? I won't hold my breath.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
Eh? I'm taking that as a de haut en bas sniff. To actually hear your
objections would be interesting.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
"selene1022" <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141605095.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ever read Baudelaire's essay rejecting hashish? Pretty on the money.
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
> >
>
> Don't know why I expected something different. Selene's
> recommendation probably.
>
> /M
My best bit of feedback came in a synch that occurred the day after I'd
finished it. I'd just come out of the post office where I'd posted off
several applications for jobs - two of which were in factories (hey, i'll be
authentic again soon and then you can pity Cosmic Funk instead of sneering
at it) - went in a junk shop and found a hardback, dust-jacketed copy of The
Collected Prose of Wyndham Lewis. A snip a 2.99 - in Charing Cross Rd it
would have 15 quid. So I take it off the shelf and open it at random. The
first thing I read was a section of the editor's introduction to 'Paleface':
'Throughout his life he was concerned at the dilution of civilised values,
though he was no blind worshipper of tradition. The tendency to enthuse over
the savage, the primitive, or the coloured races, simply by virtue of their
supposed 'nearness' to nature, seemed to him symptomatic of a decadent
sentimentalism; and the history of sentiment, he remarked, 'is one of the
survival of words, after the fact they symbolize has long vanished.'
Interesting, I thought; even If take issue with some of it.
ROBBIE
selene1022
It is certainly superfluous, after all thee considerations, to insist
upon the moral character of hashish. Let me compare it to suicide, to
slow suicide, to a weapon always bleeding, always sharp, and no
reasonable person will find anything to object to. Let me compare it to
sorcery or to magic, which wishes in working upon matter by means of
arcana (of which nothing proves the falsity more than the efficacy) to
conquer a dominion forbidden to man or permitted only to him who is
deemed worthy of it, and no philosophical mind will blame this
comparison. If the Church condemns magic and sorcery it is that they
militate against the intentions of God; that they save time and render
morality superfluous, and that she -- the Church -- only considers as
legitimate and true the treasures gained by assiduous goodwill. The
gambler who has found the means to win with certainty we all cheat; how
shall we describe the man who tries to buy with a little small change
happiness and genius? It is the infallibility itself of the means which
constitutes its immorality; as the supposed infallibility of magic
brands it with Satanic stigma. Shall I add that hashish, like all
solitary pleasures, renders the individual useless to his fellow
creatures and society superfluous to the individual, driving him to
ceaseless admiration of himself and dragging him day by day towards the
luminous abyss in which he admires his Narcissus face? But even if at
the price of his dignity, his honesty, and his free will man were able
to draw from hashish great spiritual benefits; to make a kind of
thinking machine, a fertile instrument? That is a question which I have
often heard asked, and I reply to it: In the first place, as I have
explained at length, hashish reveals to the individual nothing but
himself. It is true that this individual is, so to say, cubed, and
pushed to his limit, and as it is equally certain that the memory of
impressions survives the orgy, the hope of these utilitarians appears
at the first glance not altogether unreasonable. But I will beg them to
observe that the thoughts from which they expect to draw so great an
advantage are not in reality as beautiful as they appear under their
momentary transfiguration, clothed in magic tinsel. They pertain to
earth rather than to Heaven, and owe great portion of their beauty to
the nervous agitation, to the greediness, with which the mind throws
itself upon them. Consequently this hope is a vicious circle. Let us
admit for the moment that hashish gives, or at least increases, genius;
they forget that it is in the nature of hashish to diminish the will,
and that thus it gives with one hand what it withdraws with the other;
that is to say, imagination without the faculty of profiting by it.
Lastly, one must remember, while supposing a man adroit enough and
vigorous enough to avoid this dilemma, that there is another danger,
fatal and terrible, which is that of all habits. All such soon
transform themselves into necessities. He who has recourse to a poison
in order to think will soon be unable to think without the poison.
Imagine to yourself the frightful lot of a man whose paralysed
imagination will no longer function without the aid of hashish or of
opium! In philosophical states the human mind, to imitate the course of
the stars, is obliged to follow a curve which loops it back to its
point of departure, when the circle must ultimately close. At the
beginning I spoke of this marvellous state into which the spirit of man
sometimes finds itself thrown as if by a special favour. I have said
that, ceaselessly aspiring to rekindle his hopes and raise himself
towards the infinite, he showed (in every country and in every time) a
frenzied appetite for every substance, even those which are dangerous,
which, by exalting his personality, are able to bring in an instant
before his eyes this bargain Paradise, object of all his desires; and
at last that this daring spirit, driving without knowing it his chariot
through the gates of Hell, by this very fact bore witness to his
original greatness. But man is not so God-forsaken, so barren of
straightforward means of reaching Heaven, that he need invoke pharmacy
and witchcraft. He has no need to sell his soul to buy intoxicating
caresses and the friendship of the Hur Al'ain. What is a Paradise which
must be bought at the price of eternal salvation? I imagine a man
(shall I say a Brahmin, a poet, or a Christian philosopher?) seated
upon the steep Olympus of spirituality; around him the Muses of Raphael
or of Mategna, to console him for his long fasts and his assiduous
prayers, weave the noblest dances, gaze on him with their softest
glances and their most dazzling smiles; the divine Apollo, master of
all knowledge (that of Francavilla, of Albert Dürer, of Goltzius, or
another -- what does it matter? Is there not an Apollo for every man
who deserves one?), caresses with his bow his most sensitive strings;
below him, at the foot of the mountain, in the brambles and the mud,
the human fracas; the Helot band imitates the grimaces of enjoyment and
utters howls which the sting of the poison tears from its breast; and
the poet, saddened, says to himself: "These unfortunate ones, who have
neither fasted nor prayed, who have refused redemption by the means of
toil, have asked of black magic the means to raise themselves at a
single blow to transcendental life. Their magic dupes them, kindles for
them a false happiness, a false light; while as for us poets and
philosophers, we have begotten again our soul upon ourselves by
continuous toil and contemplation; by the unwearied exercise of will
and the unfaltering nobility of aspiration we have created for
ourselves a garden of Truth, which is Beauty; of Beauty which is Truth.
Confident in the word which says that faith removeth mountains, we have
accomplished the only miracle which God has licensed us to perform."
Ben Brumfield
> So maybe being offensive is a good thing. Tell you what, when Pope
> starts putting bounties on writers and encourages the Sisters of Mercy
> to stap on suicide belts, we'll talk.
>
I'm going to have to agree with Martha here -- while I don't find the
manifesto itself offensive, the problem is violent extremism.
Certainly that disproportionately originates from Islamic sources now,
but to claim the problem is Islam means ignoring Anglican Archbishop
Peter Akinola's role in inciting anti-Muslim riots across southern
Nigeria.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/80256FA1003E05C1/httpPublicPages/1BA1F69F1F98F407802571250051B555?opendocument
'Archbishop Akinola, writing as president of the Christian Association
of Nigeria (CAN), had warned Muslims that "they do not have the
monopoly of violence in this nation. . . . CAN may no longer be able
to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue."'
Of course, the initial reaction from the U.S. Episcopal leadership was
to condemn Akinola . . . for supporting an anti-gay law.
-Ben
selene1022
1500 Christians killed in Nigeria -7/4/04
Religious violence that erupted in the Nigerian state of Plateau a few
weeks ago has expanded and resulted in the deaths of eight pastors and
1,500 Christian believers, and the destruction of 173 churches,
according to a bulletin released by Open Doors USA.
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) released the names of the
martyred pastors who served Baptist, Anglican, Roman Catholic,
Assemblies of God and the Evangelical Reformed congregations, as well
as the Church of Christ in Nigeria and the Evangelical Church of West
Africa.
Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency reported that
religious violence in Plateau and Nasarawa states has resulted in the
displacement of 25,000 people.
Bauchi state official Alhaji Musa Lima told Compass, "About 50,000
displaced persons who managed to escape the hostility have temporarily
relocated to some parts of this state," placing enormous pressure on
local resources. On March 28, Muslim-Christian violence broke out in
the state of Nasarawa, reportedly claiming the lives of 15 Christians,
according to Compass Direct.
Compass Direct reports Christian leaders have condemned Muslim
fundamentalists for killing Christians and destroying churches in
northern Nigeria, warning that the national government's inability to
address the violence could turn the country into a theater for
religious war.
The Christian Association of Nigeria issued a prepared statement that
read, "How can anyone explain the reason for invading a church where
women, children and men were worshipping, asking them to surrender and
lie face down and then proceed to machete and axe them to death in
their house of worship?" The CAN statement asserted that Christians
in Nigeria have never initiated violence against Muslims and claimed
that Nigerian officials demonstrate lukewarm attitudes toward the
plight of Christians.
"We need to keep Nigeria in our prayers - hostility to Christianity
is on the increase as the conflict between the Muslim north and the
Christian south continues," said Open Doors USA President Dr. Carl
Moeller.
"Sharia law has now been implemented in a dozen states. Please pray
with me for the families of those who have been martyred for their
belief in Jesus Christ our Risen Lord."
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the
views of Ekklesia
selene1022
warning that his flock aren't going to lay down like lambs for the
slaughter. And I don't think it's either fair or just to put Christians
in Nigeria on par morally with the Islamists. At some point, people
have both a moral obligation, and a right to fight back.
Ben Brumfield
persecution of Christians and the imposition of sharia in northern
Nigerian than you are, but nothing you quoted in the 2004 article looks
inaccurate. However, I'm discussing one particular set of riots --
especially distressing because it represents a break in the
one-sidedness of the Nigerian story.
It would be one thing if the Christian reaction had been marches or
riots in the northern states where Islamists are imposing sharia and
committing atrocities. (I might, in fact, still criticise them in that
case, but from a Christian perspective, pointing to the abandonment of
self-defence by the early Christian martyrs. but that probably isn't an
appropriate argument in a political context.)
However, they weren't marching in self-defence against their oppressors
-- these were, in fact, riots within majority Christian communities,
outside of the power of the sharia states, and they were riots that
attacked a Muslim minority having nothing to do with the northern
riots.
> At some point, people have both a moral obligation, and a right to fight back.
Obviously. (Well, it should be obvious, anyway.) But retaliating for
crimes perpetuated against you by attacking someone other than your
assailant is criminal itself. Just look at the UNC case.
-Ben
selene1022
innocent. However, you miss the point I think.
Islamists trying to impose Sharia is the root cause of all the current
violence. And while the Archbishop's remarks are disturbing, I don't
think you can blame Anglican fanaticism for the problem. It's not like
he's yelling from the pulpit to kill the infidels. He's saying that he
may not longer be able to contain the violence. Big difference.
It's sad, but not surprising that at some point there would be
reprisals.
ROBBIE
> No, it is not right Ben for christians or anyone else to kill the
> innocent. However, you miss the point I think.
>
> Islamists trying to impose Sharia is the root cause of all the current
> violence. And while the Archbishop's remarks are disturbing, I don't
> think you can blame Anglican fanaticism
Funnily enough, Peter Hitchens refers to himself - jokingly, he says - as an
anglican fundamentalist.
ROBBIE
selene1022
athiest to be hanged drawn and quartered.
fundamentalist and fanatic are not necessarily the same.
Ben Brumfield
> Islamists trying to impose Sharia is the root cause of all the current violence.
Presuming you mean Nigeria, I agree. There's an overlay of ethnicity
and the politics of decentralization, but I think it'd be fair to say
that those only exacerbate the main issue of sharia.
> And while the Archbishop's remarks are disturbing, I don't
> think you can blame Anglican fanaticism for the problem.
I agree with you there, too.
> It's not like
> he's yelling from the pulpit to kill the infidels. He's saying that he
> may not longer be able to contain the violence. Big difference.
Here is where we disagree. I remember reading his remarks on
Midwestern Conservative Journal when they appeared. I was nodding my
head as he talked about how the northerners had "interpreted our
restraint as weakness" But the two sentences about "not being able to
constrain our youth" and Muslims seeing that they "do not have a
monopoly on violence" were shocking. They really looked like calls for
retaliation, especially when you consider that the CAN isn't some third
party Akinola has no control over, but is an organization he actually
heads.
I believe that Akinola's letter was a lightly-veiled call for
retaliation, and many of his colleagues, both non-Nigerian Anglican and
non-Anglican Nigerian believe the same.
-Ben
ROBBIE
> Yes, but even on his worst day, don't think he'd call for the local
> athiest to be hanged drawn and quartered.
>
> fundamentalist and fanatic are not necessarily the same.
>
I know - I wasn't for a moment comparing, I just making a by the by because
of the unsual combination of the words anglican fanatic.
ROBBIE
selene1022
selene1022
keep the lid on this any longer.
Does he have a history of stirring the christian community to violence?
If not, you may have a partial answer to the question.
Ben Brumfield
I think that was indeed the case, as I never saw any reports of him
asking for restraints when the riots followed his remarks. I should
probably do more research, though.
> Does he have a history of stirring the christian community to violence?
So far as I'm aware the Christian community does not have a history of
being stirred to violence. Akinola does have ambitions, and some
Episcopal conservatives in the US, Canada, and the UK are talking about
him as head of a re-formed Anglican Communion. For whatever that's
worth in this context.
-Ben
ROBBIE
> I knew you didn't. By the way, has P. Hitchens written on Nigeria?
>
I haven't seen it if he has but I notice he's started a blog:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ - it's good for a laugh: he
advocates raising the voting age to 28 (The Labour Party want to bring it
down to 16) and not allowing public sector employees vote...
ROBBIE
selene1022
his congregation to rape, pillage and plunder would be a smart move.
We have several congregations in this area that have left over the new
gay bishop, and while the members are conservative, don't think they
would support that sort of thing.
I think we should perhaps try to walk a mile in his shoes. Can you
imagine the outrage if dozens of priests and ministers were butchered
in any western country? If you ask me, the christian leadership has
shown a great deal of restraint for a long time. And it is to the great
shame of the international community that the islamists have been
allowed to get away with it.
selene1022
in raising the voting age here because only around 17% of the under
thirty crowd even bothers--even with all the MTV rock the vote garbage.
A good thing if you ask me (maybe that's a sign of early old fartism.)
Ben Brumfield
> imagine the outrage if dozens of priests and ministers were butchered
> in any western country? If you ask me, the christian leadership has
> shown a great deal of restraint for a long time.
I've heard the same line about suicide bombers.
Sorry, but some things are always wrong. No matter if the perpetrator
is from an oppressed group, terrorizing innocents is still an evil
deed. That it was done against a backdrop of much more evil done by
the oppressor does not excuse it.
> And it is to the great
> shame of the international community that the islamists have been
> allowed to get away with it.
On that, at least, we agree.
-Ben