Barth's picture

    Glass Houses

    By Barth on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 4:52pm |

    Sheriff Dupnik

    Let me say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences.

    The Sheriff did not accuse anybody but the shooter of attempting to murder Congresswoman Giffords, a personal friend of his, and of the murder of Judge Roll, another friend of his, the nine year old Christina Taylor Green, and so many others while seriosuly wounding even still others. Some people did: they were wrong. Neither Gov Palin's obscene literature literally targeting Congresswoman Giffords, nor Sharron Angle's suggestions of impending "Second Amendment remedies" can be said to be a specific call to murder a congresswoman.

    Bill O'Reilly's repeated description of a doctor who preformed legal abortions as "Tiller the killer" did not specifically call or his murder either and it one can do nothing more than speculate as to whether the person who did kill Dr. Tiller would have done so, without O'Reilly's repeated mantra.

    But Sheriff Dupnik was not proposing government action against free speech either. He was asking people to control themselves: It may be "free" speech, but still it comes with a price.

    That this is considered, in some quarters, incendiary, worthy of the Sheriff's impeachment or electoral defeat may be the worst thing, other than the physical pain and deaths, that has followed this horrible event.

    In second place would be this:

    Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?
                                    TTL REP DEM IND APRIL 2010
    Justified                     16    28     11   11      16
    Never justified             76   64      81   81      79
    DK/NA                        8     8         8    8        5

    Over a quarter of a major political party think that violent action against the government might be justified?

    Here's one of them, in a link from a post last weekend. This is an elected Republican--not some guy in the woods, on Meet the Press, commenting in August, 2009 about a person who flew a plane into an IRS office:

    MR. GREGORY: ...I am talking about violence against the
    government. That's what this is synonymous with.

    SEN. COBURN: The, the--but the tone is based on fear of loss of control
    of their own government. What, what is the genesis behind people going to
    such extreme statements? What is it? We, we have lost the confidence, to a certain degree, and it's much worse than when Tom was the, the, the
    leader of the Senate. We have, we have raised the question of whether or
    not we're legitimately thinking about the American people and their
    long-term best interests. And that's the question. The, the mail volume
    of all the senators didn't go up based on the healthcare debate, the mail
    volume went up when we started spending away our future indiscriminately.
    And that's not Republican or Democrat, that has been a problem for years.
    But it's exacerbated now that we're in the kind of financial situation
    and economic situation.

    This is not the kind of answer any elected official should give, much less a doctor. To say that it is understandable why a person would kill others is reprehensible, whether it has a direct connection to an act of violence. Yet, as E.J. Dionne and Rachel Maddow pointed out on Thursday, many of those who so strongly oppose any form of gun control no longer do so as sports enthusiasts or hunters, or even for protection against criminals, but to enable them to oppose a tyrannical government.

    It is of course, very easy to talk about what others, who do not agree with oneself, should do or say. Censorship is, of course, wrong, aside from being unconstitutional. And we cannot be in fear of words with which we do not agree. This space
    has found it quite incredible when people calling themselves progressives or liberal begin to froth at the mouth at some of the silliest "provocations". Moreover, we have our share of over the top commentary, especially in the pages of Daily Kos. (This is not a reason to condemn Daily Kos; quite the contrary, really. It is a basis for suggesting our side is not free of foolish and excessive commentaries on the motives and ideas of public servants with whom we do not always agree.)

    Is, for instance, "Hillary...a Lunatic Right-Wing Hawk" or the "war monger" described with much approval in those pages during the 2007-2008 period? . Should the President of the United States be referred to as "slime"?

    No suggestion of an equivalency, false or not, should be seen here. And, one---we surely learned this in first grade somewhere---hardly justifies the other. President Clinton was routinely referred to as a murderer, and the barely printable things that are said about the current president go well beyond name calling when, as noted here last weekend and previously, that include prayers for his death.

    The line drawn between this kind of speech and people shooting politicians does not have to be explicit to be of concern. Just as we have no specific idea as to what made Congresswoman Giffords so important to her would be assassin, there was, in the Warren Commission's words:

    no evidence that the extreme views expressed toward President Kennedy by some rightwing groups centered in Dallas or any other general atmosphere of hate or rightwing extremism which may have existed in the city of Dallas had any connection with Oswald's actions on November 22, 1963. There is, of course, no way to judge what the effect of the general political ferment present in that city might have been...

    the Commission devoted a fair amount of space in their report, as linked above and here, in discussion of roughly the same extreme noise directed against a President of the United States elected as the nominee of the Democratic Party as we have seen since even before the current president was elected. Look at this thing being distributed in Dallas as President Kennedy arrived, and this full page advertisement which ran in a Dallas newspaper on the day of his murder.

    And after all we have read about this week's murderer, the similarity of his nonsense to this, about President Kennedy' assassin, should make those who would, in Sheriff Dupnik's words, pooh-pooh the idea that a tolerance for craziness, and its encouragement by politicians eager for any vote, is a recipe for chaos, whether specific acts can be directly traced to specific statements. This is not about Loughner but Oswald, but it is hard to see much difference:

    His wife testified that he compared himself with great readers of history. Such ideas of grandeur were apparently accompanied by notions of oppression. He had a great hostility toward his environment, whatever it happened to be

    When those of us old enough to have seen this exact same story unfold over and over again, with little difference, but no change in policy because there is no way to specifically connect each event to precise legislative action or failures, we begin to wonder whether we are just lucky to have made it through the maelstrom.

    ------

    One little postscript is required: We all loved the President's speech the other night, and most of us understood the somewhat odd reaction of an audience mourning the dead and supporting the injured but the idea that it is the President who has changed, rather than that the audience has decided in the aftermath of these events, to pay attention to him the way they did before his election requires a link to just two of his most sensational addresses of the past year, which apparently many have missed. Michigan commencement, Carnegie-Mellon Watching them will underscore the view, acceptable once again this week, that we are dealing with a quite extraordinary man serving as President. Sadly or not, he is neither a dictator or monarch, but he is the best there is in our nation's capitol. As President Kennedy told us almost exactly fifty years ago, though, whether we move forward as a nation depends on us, and not just the president. But that's next week's post.

    Comments

    Random points:

    A lot of doctors are pricks. Recall Frisk telling us tear drops could spread AIDS?

    I met wonderful people who happened to have been doctors and real pricks who happened to be doctors.

    Our President is awesome at times. A great great speech.

    Nothing will stop repubs in the South and Southwest from spewing out vitriol. Nothing.

    And right wing radio will always be with us. The participants make too much goddamn money.

    Great essay and well integrated as always Barth!


    by Richard Day on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 5:29pm

    I love how you do that.  I agree with every single line.  And, the nothing part is exaclty so.

    The two doctors treating Congresswoman Giffords:  Rhee is one of them, and I keep fogetting the other guy's name, is who you imagine will treat you when you need a doctor.  Usually that's not who you get.

    and awesome is the right word.  In the middle of his speech the other night, I was trying to figure out how to repeal that two term thing.  There is only one thing a President can absolutely do, without the help of others: inspire.  There was President Kennedy when I was a child, President Roosevelt a few years before I was born and President Obama.


    by Barth on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 5:52pm

    Sometime ago I had the pleasure of attending a lecture given by the author Don DeLillo. During one part, he talked about the intense immersion he underwent during the writing process of the novel, a process that would could be considered an obsession.  For the novel Libra, that process took him to immerse himself in the Warren Report.  And the one part I remember him saying was, after wading through all those documents, page after page, "staring at the dental records of Oswald's mother, one becomes aware that one is in the presence of a wonderous obession."

    I think some quotes from Libra are appropriate to our nation's attempt to make sense of what has happened in Arizona.

    Facts are lonely things.

    There is enough mystery in the facts as we know them, enough of conspiracy, coincidence, loose ends, dead ends, multiple interpretations. There is no need […] to invent the grand and masterful scheme, the plot that reaches flawlessly in a dozen directions. - Agent Branch

    Maybe what has to happen is that the individual must allow himself to be swept along, must find himself in the stream of no-choice, the single direction. This is what makes things inevitable. You use the restrictions and penalties they invent to make yourself stronger. History means to merge. The purpose of history is to climb out of your own skin.

    If the world is where we hide from ourselves, what do we do when the world is no longer accessible? We invent a false name, invent a destiny, purchase a firearm through the mail.

    Think of two parallel lines. […] One is the life of Lee H. Oswald. One is the conspiracy to kill the President. What bridges the space between them? What makes a connection inevitable? There is a third line. It comes out of dreams, visions, intuitions, prayers, out of the deepest levels of the self. It's not generated by cause and effect like the other two lines. It's a line that cuts across causality, cuts across time. It has no history that we can recognize or understand. But it forces a connection. It puts a man on the path of his destiny. - David Ferrie

    The books were private, like something you find and hide, some lucky piece that contains the secret of who you are. The books themselves were secret. Forbidden and hard to read. They altered the room, charged it with meaning. The drabness of his surroundings, his own shabby clothes were explained and transformed by these books. He saw himself as part of something vast and sweeping. He was the product of a sweeping history, he and his mother, locked into a process, a system of money and property that diminished their human worth every day, as if by scientific law. The books made him part of something. Something led up to his presence in this room, in this particular skin, and something would follow. Men in small rooms. Men reading and waiting, struggling with secret and feverish ideas.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 7:32pm

    DeLillo at his best really puts it out there. Thanks.  It's very disturbing; don't you think, since so many of these sudden murderers seem to have created a similar "world" for themselves.  And, without armchairing too much, while still so little is known, but the idea that such a person could have such a "vision" but yet keep it offstage, so to speak, only to have his world jogged by, say, being kicked out of community college for making everyone uncomfortable.

    He bought the Glock almost immediately after that.

    Oswald kept realizing the things he wanted to do, only to be grossly disappointed each time.  It is reasonable to think that when he tried to kill a right wing retired general named Walker, and both failed to hit him and even to be arrested, he had to have a new goal, something bigger the next time, and what he did that time changed all of our lives.

    Columbine, I believe had a similar story; Virginia Tech, too.  Even the 1993 attack on the Trade Center must have been a failure for the world that guy concocted and the attack of 2001 inevitable.  Wow.


    by Barth on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 7:44pm

    And Hitler was a failed artist. 

    What seems to be the ironic part of this is that those who feel spurred by the society/world around them, end up through their immersion in the violent undercurrents of that society/world end up being an emergent phenomenon of that society/world.

    What is difficult to deal with is that workings of these "inevitable" tragedies happen mainly offstage, in little rooms and prison cells.  The "actors" looking and acting like all the others in the little rooms and prison cells.  WHich one is the next Oswald?


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 8:08pm

    I like the way you present the distance between the specific causes motivating a particular killer and the "general political ferment" at work when the killing happens.

    People who have elected themselves to be political assassins have ranged from combatants fighting an actual ongoing war to crazy lone wolves where the war is only happening inside their skulls.  In between the extremes, all sorts of combinations are possible. Oswald, for instance, was enmeshed in the cold world war environment. He had spent time in the USSR and hung out with all sorts of characters with their own agendas. He was much more socially functional than this Loughner person appears to be.

    But the two killers share this; their own ideology had little bearing on who was talking extreme measures when they struck.  A moment comes when all the aggressive talk stands side by side with violence directed against a shared enemy. The juxtaposition is not the fault of people who notice it.


    by moat on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 7:56pm

    Tom Coburn's words:

    We have, we have raised the question of whether or
    not we're legitimately thinking about the American people and their
    long-term best interests. And that's the question.

    That is the question, isn't it? Yes, I'm convinced the Tea Party and their Republican cohort have got all the wrong answers. But underlying the bravado and the racism and the anti-intellectualism of the Tea Party are fear, and loss, and a conviction that the government is not "legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests."

    Guess what? I'm a liberal, and I agree with Tom Coburn and the Tea Party. That really is the question.

    Here's a great truth from our Declaration of Independence:

    ...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...

    It seems that many Americans feel the evils are becoming insufferable. That doesn't mean we are on the cusp of an armed insurrection. We are much too content inside the comforts of our privileged existence for that to occur. We don't, most of us, look to take action that might have negative consequences for ourselves our our families. But it does make us vulnerable to demagogues.

    We must oppose the demagogues, but we also must address the question. Are Congress and the Administration legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests?

    If not, and I think they are not, violence is not a desirable answer. But we liberals haven't forged an answer, either, and that leaves room for the crazy. 


    by Red Planet on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:09pm

    red Planet -- so glad to see you here! BTW, you hit the nail on the head as usual. Yes, Coburns words are right, but as you know, for the wrong reason. Because the long- term best interest of our citizenry is to have accessible health care for all, sustainable and renewable resources, policies that are good for the planet, and excellent public transportation.

    Coburn and his ilk consider all that "European" not realizing that they are paying those goals a compliment.


    by CVille Dem on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:34pm

    I agree with Red Planet as well.

    Barth, you seem to be inferring that Coburn thinks the violence is ok from the fact that Coburn says nothing whatsoever about violence being ok or not. And maybe you are right that any public representative ought to preface any remarks touching on the Arizona tragedy with a condemnation of violence. I don't know if Coburn has done that - in this interview or elsewhere. But that aside, what he provides in terms of a diagnosis of what makes such tragedies more likely on a societal level is pretty accurate. There is a perfectly legitimate place for such systemic analyses and what can be done about it - i.e. improve economic conditions, make Washington more responsive to people's concerns - alongside the usual finger-pointing, recriminations, and pleas for calm.

    Of course Coburn's idea of 'being more responsive to the People's needs' involves gutting Entitlements, which all of 3% of self-described conservatives favor. So, yeah, he's also full of shit.


    by Obey on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:08pm

    Sen Coburn was responding almost to a plea that he say that it was wrong for a guy to fly a plane into an IRS building and, instead he was justifying it.  He'll have another chance today, btw, since he is on MTP again.  If Gregory does not slap him with his 2009 comment, you will be able to hear me scream.

    Yes, I agree that our government is barely responsive, if at all, to the country at large---as opposed to those who contribute to political campaigns and that this creates a very dangerous and combustible situation.  My point is that it is irresponsible for elected officials to now start lighting matches.


    by Barth on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:36am

    What or who has the right answer? That should be the dialogue 

    That is the question, isn't it? Yes, I'm convinced the Tea Party and their Republican cohort have got all the wrong answers. 

    Yes your convinced they are wrong,...  problem is; they think you are, and because of the indecision, the rift grows. Indecision leads to divisiveness, mistrust and revenge, eventually leading to armed camps. 

    Being united by one law is a safeguard. The poor and the rich under the same laws. NO EXCEPTIONS 

    Nature shows us the way, You can’t ignore the Laws of gravity, the laws of physics holds the atom together. The law can hold the people together.

    That is why I am such an advocate for the use of the scriptures.

    A common Law, found within the same book, everyone on the same page. Meditating on how to improve in our relationship with one another.

    If it say’s you must love your neighbor as yourself, what does that mean? How can I improve in showing love, openly discuss this as a Nation. 

    If it says you must care for the poor, what does that mean? How can I show, I really care about the poor, what can I do to improve, open that up for a National debate.

    If it say’s thou shall not kill, what does that mean?

    If it say’s you shall not defraud, what does that mean? When we as a people start meditating on how does defrauding manifest itself in various forms, the Nation as a whole benefits when everyone stands up for the law. Everyone knows it.

    No false scales, no fine print intended to defraud, No crooked bank dealings; the law says this is the right way.

    It should mean the same thing to everyone. NO EXCEPTIONS  

    The law is what bonds us together. 

    We don’t have time for everyone to decide for himself or herself, what is right or wrong.

    We can’t have society running around saying, NO this is the way, and another saying NO this is the way. 

    We have to choose this is good and this is bad. This is the right way that is the wrong way.

    The law is the right way, The scriptures containing the law principle, found in the common book.

    A book for ALL mankind.

    It is futile trying to convince the other side, without some authoritative law.


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:26pm

    What you are advocating is a theocracy.  That alone should be enough to discount what you are proposing.

    But I would add your notion of "It should mean the same thing to everyone. NO EXCEPTIONS" is all fine and dandy, but the world offers a host of differing opinions on how to interpret the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament. I mean does God's command "Thou shall not kill" mean we should immediately disband our military?  Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek mean we should have not retaliated against Japan after Pearl Harbor? 

    And can I say no expected the Spanish Inquisition?


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:28pm

    Imo, your questions answer themselves.

    The Bible isn't hard to understand. It's just very inconvenient to live by.

    Anyhow, surely we can all agree to replace Federal law with Leviticus, no? Except that bit about shellfish...


    by Obey on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:50pm

    That bit about shellfish is the one thing I think we can all agree about...oh wait, does that mean we can't have our bible study meet at Red Lobster anymore?


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:54pm

    Except that bit about shellfish...

    If we are registering for exceptions, I rise to be heard on the "Onan" issue...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:02pm

    Under the present time, can you truly say with a straight face, our Democracy is guaranteed to work? 

    In case you haven’t noticed;  it appears we are tearing apart. The people are “lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride],.” 

    Would you have us believe, Democracy will turn this around? 

    What I propose works for all governments, not just a theocratic one. The ideals of a common law, is for the sake of JUSTICE, something every citizen should want. How is that singularly a Theocratic ideal? 

    The book already exists; do you propose we write our own book of laws and principles, so as to avoid the appearance that the law originated from a Theocractic model?

     If I suggested we use the scriptures as a model, would that be agreeable to you? WHY NOT  build upon 5000 years of human experience. We don’t need trial and error, we need action now. It's the principles that are important.

    The OT has been fulfilled and done away with. The New Testament is based on love. 

    Are you suggesting love is unnecessary in a Democracy , it's such a …..theocratic ideal?  


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:04pm

    You can't suggest "A book for ALL mankind" on one hand and then suggest on the other hand all you offering is love in Democracy.  I would offer if some asked me to decide on a spiritual path, that we follow the teaching of Buddha.  Would you follow? Would you turn your back even though the Buddha taught us that the way is paved with loving-kindness of living beings.  Numerically the Buddhists outnumber the Christians, so if one wants to go with human experience quantifiably, I've got you there.  Of course, I respect and support your endeavors to make this a better world based on your faith.  I hope you respect other faiths.  The easy way is for a society to impose the LAW.  But we in America are trying to go forth where no faith determines that LAW.  This is messy. We make mistakes.  But given that no society has fully achieved this goal of true multi-culturalism (one can see the fits and furies in Europe as they struggle with it, and Turkey is another good example of a secular country that struggles with a religious dogma attempting to impose itself on the course of the political unfolding), we are struggling toward an achievement we don't know is possible.  But I think it is critical, ESSENTIAL, if we are to evolve.  So that we can without issue have Native American provide the invocation of a memorial which also allow the President to quote biblical scriptures so that we can move forward as a people.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:23pm

    Trope, not sure I'm clear about a specific point you made?  Are you asserting there are more Buddhists than Christians in this world?  If you are, you're off by more than a Billion.  FYI


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:48pm

    Yeah my bad. I was thinking something else (and working on something else), and made the error.  I think in my mind I was thinking of "eastern religions" vs. "western religions."  Again my bad. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:58pm

    Be that as it may, you certainly picked a more sophisticated theology, even if mistaking the simple numerical superiority issue. (which, since we have chosen to eschew democracy going in, doesn't really matter.)

    It is perhaps germane to note the scornful dismissal of democracy that informs the political science of the Islamic Republics (extant, ie Iran, and wannabe).

    Not unlike partner R, they compare man made law unfavorably with the dispensed version.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:03am

    This is true regarding Islamic Republics.  When I read Resistance, I see the Buddhist statues being blown up in Afghanistan.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:12am

    It is futile trying to convince the other side, without some authoritative law.

     

    And how is it working for you with "authoritative law", Yahweh-Boy? Convince much?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:00pm

    What answers to the problems do you offer, except for your own self gratification.

    ONAN ? 


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:09pm

    What answers to the problems do you offer

    Well, since you ask, I would definitely recommend you jerk off more--the back up is clearly destroying your cognitive function.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:15pm

    It's obvious, not only is America lost trying to figure out how to stop the violence, how can it when some of the citizens are so debased?  


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:25pm

    I take it then, that we can put you down on the questionnaire as favoring fewer  orgasms for yourself and others.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:32pm

    well that is bit a juvenile response, really. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:27pm

    Hey, he asked for my advice!


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:33pm

    What do you have against juveniles?


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:41pm

     juvenile response

    1. I am 19--there's a problem with my paperwork....

    2. When you want something done right, go to a professional... (I gather you have not perused my profile)


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:46pm

    Well, if you think reducing the conversation to whether someone needs to jack off is going to help us move forward, all the more the power to ya.  But I think it unnecessary diminishment of the collective discourse.  We can be cheeky (no pun intended), but, as one says we all have lines we draw and I have mine.  Because I can, I will state when I think someone has cross the line I have personally determined has been crossed.  Such is the freedom of expression that is embraced by this country. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:04am

    I have personally determined

    As long as you keep it personal, it's ok with me

    . (I do apprehend, however, that partner R would, if he could, choose to enforce certain of the Old Testament mandates notwithstanding his global declaration in re:it's "fulfilment", above.  That crosses lines for me, as I think might for you as well.)


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:17am

    (yes it does crosses my lines in a fundamental way - no pun intended)

    (and i support the jollyroger being the jollyroger.  but the trope has to be the trope.)

    (peace)


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:50am

    (peace)

    It's all good...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:15am

    I wanna add that the very mention of the word "orgasm" seems to have produced a blessed (pun intended...) silence from R.

    Plus Mage's more scholarly rebuttal...

    Post hoc ergo?


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:24am

    All I can say is that I'm feeling kind of theoritically sleepy.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:31am

    Yeah, it's fixin to sneak up on me any minute too...failing pharmacological intevention, that is...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:38am

    Even in Tijuana, all i am seeking is some philosophical snuggling after the debauchery.  Is that too much to ask?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:51am

    philosophical snuggling

    Here's  some: I live accoss from City Lights, and Lawrence is a friend of mine--Took acid at his birthday party once...He's damn spry.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 2:00am

    he's one our country's true heros. you're a lucky soul.

    Now what about political pontfication spooning?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 2:13am

    political pontfication spooning

     

    I thought we got that from Mage already.

    You're right bout knowing Lawrence, tho.  It is truly a privelege.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:15am

    Resistance. You really have to stop spamming people's reasonable discourse with your scripture spouting comments. No one wants to hear your gibberish. If you are really interested why people think it is gibberish, I think Sam Harris can explain. He also offers up some scripture that you seem to selectively omit from offering from your "good book".

    One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of nature: there is no secular basis for morality. Raping and killing children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God who says it is. Otherwise, right and wrong would be mere matters of social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun. In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.

    It is simply amazing how widespread this fear of secular moral chaos is, given how many misconceptions about morality and human nature are required to set it whirling in a person’s brain. There is undoubtedly much to be said against the spurious linkage between faith and morality, but the following three points should suffice.If a book like the Bible were the only reliable blueprint for human decency that we had, it would be impossible (both practically and logically) to criticize it in moral terms. But it is extraordinarily easy to criticize the morality one finds in the Bible, as most of it is simply odious and incompatible with a civil society.

    The notion that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is really quite amazing, given the contents of the book. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated.

    Of course, God’s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18–21, Mark 7:9–13, and Matthew 15:4–7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshiping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes.

    Most Christians imagine that Jesus did away with all this barbarism and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration. He didn’t. (See Matthew 5:18–19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20–21, John 7:19.) Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one’s neighbor should go back and read the New Testament. And he or she should pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if Jesus ever returns to earth trailing clouds of glory (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28–29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation). It is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured. (Ask yourself, what are the chances that these good doctors of the Church hadn’t read the New Testament closely enough to discover the error of their ways?) As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might be the very worst, in fact—if we didn’t also happen to have the Qur’an.

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3

    So Resistance please spare us your lecture on biblical morality. Save it for your bible study group.

    Sorry for the long OT comment folks, but this is really getting annoying. Please carry on with comments relevant to the topic at hand.


    by mageduley on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:16am

    No apology necessary, and, as the thread has developed, it is very much ON topic.'

    Thanks.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:20am

    I'll keep pleading my case, hoping I'll reach honest hearted ones. People who recognize that what is being done now is not working. Lets try something else.  

    Mage is Prejudiced 

    So because Augustine and Aquinas tortured people, YOU can with one broad stroke of the brush. condemn all Christians?

    Notice I didn't call them Saints, you did with the intention to smear good Christians, who would never condone torture.  

    I've seen enough of a world full of people like you, full of prejudice and hate; leading to violence

    I think one can conclude, that any comment you make onward, is one of prejudice.

    Be annoyed, I don't like the qualities you display.

    The scriptures torment you, because you hate the light, the Word offers.

    So lets shine the light even brighter, Lets expose the misleading lies, you’ve offered

    Here are the scriptures you've offered.  Not in order, but sufficient to prove what you are  

    (Luke 16:14-17) 14 Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began

     to sneer at him. 15 Consequently he said to them:

    “YOU are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows YOUR hearts; because what is lofty among men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight

    . 16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John.

     From then on the kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. 17 Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one particle of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled. 

    ""The law and the prophets were until John"

    (Matthew 5:17-22) 17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill;

    .......... 21 “YOU heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.’ 

    Oh and thank you for showing us another example relevant today, concerning the vitriol of the hateful political scene   

    22 However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; . . .

    You then include (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

    For every good work is now condemned by you? Or is it you wouldn’t know a good work? 

    As for  2 Peter 20–21, couldn’t find those scriptures, No light there.   

    This scripture you included sheds light.   (John 7:18-19) 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. 19 Moses gave YOU the Law, did he not? But not one of YOU obeys the Law. Why are YOU seeking to kill me?. . ."

    Your unkind words are intended to harm me, because I speak the truth because  I seek to find a way out of the senseless violence, a  way to end the poverty and hunger.

    Just saying, if you don't like the scriptures Mage 

    What law restrains you?  Or anybody else, who wants to live by they're own laws. A world full of lawless people, is not good for the Planets inhabitants.

    I desire to live in the light, I don't want to live in the darkness, where prejudice resides. 

    But please, don't pass yourself off as having a solution, or a light to bring us out of the dark days ahead. 

    A Warning to others,  Mage can't get us out of the pit, the Nation is in.

    (Matthew 15:14) . . .LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:58am

    Okay! Call me an honest-hearted one, if you must! I concede your point here, just to get this proselytizing behind us. God is Great! Allah Akhbar! The guy can do anything he sets his mind to. He's all powerful. There's nothing he's not capable of achieving. What a guy!

    But then I find myself wondering about that when you look at the big picture. It is assumed, of course, that God could have created man to live in a land of milk and honey, where no one ever suffered and all experienced nothing but the sublime for whatever period they lived on Earth. (Or maybe never even died?)

    But he didn't. Instead, this is what we've got. We're treated like lab rats to be tortured mercilessly. Some of us - even children who are surely "innocents" - are treated to the most debased insult and injury that we can imagine. Sometimes, the depredations even stretch the imagination to embrace horrors that we can't begin to comprehend.

    And for what? Toward what end? The Almighty's personal entertainment? Just his need to create playthings that will bow down before him in adulation because he's such a badass who is otherwise capable of inflicting or withholding such pain and misery? He can allow such things as AZ shootings and Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to happen, even though it is in his power to prevent them?

    If there truly is an all-powerful God out there whose capable of taking his entertainment from the misery and injustice that is loosed upon this world - and has been throughout our history - we're all fucked. And somehow it seems highly implausible that all pain and misery will go away if we just welcome him like he's the new neighbor or something. If that was what he truly wanted, he would have made it happen a long time ago.  


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:14am

    Now expound about your honesty?

    “Call me an honest-hearted one, if you must!” 

    As I point out your lies. 

    “But then I find myself wondering about that when you look at the big picture. It is assumed, of course, that God could have created man to live in a land of milk and honey,” But he didn't. 

    He did, create a land of milk and honey, It was called the Garden of Eden, and man did live there till they rebelled. Stealing what didn’t belong to them. Eating something they were warned to stay  away from, forbidden. But they too didn’t want to listen, They ignored the warning, they ate something they were told not to and evidently it affected the genetic code. That’s gods fault they they didn’t obey?  

    You ought to be ashamed, because you LIE. He did create a good home, a beautiful home called Earth and when the tenants broke the agreement the landlord and provider kicked them out.  

    "Instead, this is what we've got. We're treated like lab rats to be tortured mercilessly". 

    Again you ought to be ashamed, the conditions you see today, is the result of the rats taking over.The atrocities are commited by men against men, It is man who is destoying whatever home we have left, man destoying the Eco system that sustains all life  

     In your case ignorance is bliss? 

     Sometimes it's just better to be ignorant and blame others (God) rather than taking responsibility that YOUR own actions, (bad mouthing god) contribute to the problems mankind has?  

    Just as much as those claiming to be God’s servants prove false, and the people suffer, they suffer as much under your system in the absence of god.  

    "He can allow such things as AZ shootings and Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to happen, even though it is in his power to prevent them?"

     You blame God, because man failed to listen to God? 

    God’s words tells us how to live together, so we wouldn’t have the wars, the senseless murders, the torture and how to prevent the atrocities committed by men against men.  

    He told us, but people like you rejected his words, and then when bad events happen, you blame him.What should he have done seeing as how you and others continually bad mouth his counsel, YOU refuse to listen. you attack his messengers.  

    The Nations that rejected his wisdom and replaced it with their own, want to cry “he should have made us listen?” Is that what you're suggesting, he should have made them listen? 

    Instead of you pointing out the Nations themselves should be held accountable,  accepting responsibilty for their actions, you defend the pathways the Nations took.Blame god because the Nations were wrong in rejecting good counsel. That is not honest hearted. 

    "If that was what he truly wanted, he would have made it happen a long time ago" 

    Are you now saying you would have listened had he done it earlier?

    Done what? Make what happen? Make people listen, take away their free will?  

    He did act in Noahs day.  

    Again mankind saying  “Thanks but no thanks for your further assistance God, now go away leave us alone. Don’t give us your scriptures. We can mess this up all by ourselves, we have free will to do whatever?  

    Again what should he have done?  


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:13pm

    And so the nine year old child in AZ dies at the hands of a deranged assassin - and her family is compelled to suffer the agony of that loss and the incredible injustice of that circumstance - all because the Almighty is still pissed off at the theft of an apple? What? He has no more apples?

    He is all-powerful, and so it is implied that he can prevent such tragedy and injustice from occurring - even in ways that we could never comprehend because we are not "Almighty." Yet, his wrath knows no bounds, and so innocent children and parents must suffer because some asshat stole an apple in the ancient past?

    Sounds like an incredibly irresponsible loose cannon, this god of yours. In applying simple logic to your arguments in favor of "Let Go, and Let God," you offer little that appeals to anyone's sense of security or justice. By your argument, he can order the world to his liking. And this is what he came up with? Lab rats in a torturous"free choice" experiment, all provided for the supposed entertainment of this god? Sorry, Resistance, but it fails to capture the imagination as a reasoned excuse to play along by the supposed rules in this game of yours.

    With apologies to barth for once again allowing you to hijack a blog with this illogical proselytizing, I will back away now and leave you to your rambling defense of the indefensible.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:11pm

    Resistance, if you feel the need to use bible quotes to cover every conversation here, I would ask you to consider the feelings of others here.  We don't all believe as you do, as has been made clear here countless times, and your suggestion that we are lesser human beings because we don't only serves to anger and not enlighten those you're trying to appeal to.

    Please try to refrain from making your arguments personal.  There are many good people here who are not believers.  Alienating them does not make your case for you.  I think you are a good person, but you have to consider the merits of each person here based on their words and not their religious beliefs.  Thanks.


    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 9:32am

    Glass house is indeed a good headline.

    Reflection is good.

    Ramona wrote, "I would ask you to consider the feelings of others here."

    Which others are you referring too. Are you speaking for all, some, a few

    It doesn't  seem to bother you when others hurt me? 

        "We don't all believe as you do,"

    So what is it you’re saying, "you don’t believe as we do, so please we don’t want to hear your thoughts or expressions or solutions, go away?" 

    You know how stupid that sounds? .

    How hypocritical of you. A Nation that supposedly prides itself, on the right to free speech;  Except;………  if Ramona and a few others object keep quiet.

    Ramona do you even realize the fault you are accusing me of is the fault you display. Throwing rocks in the glass house post, how ironic.

        "and your suggestion that we are lesser human beings"

    You smear me with unkind words, intended to impune my motivation,  I have never considered myself higher;  that positon is reserved for you and your censorship team.  

        “There are many good people here”

        “I would ask you to consider the feelings of others here.”

    Thanks for the hypocritical advice. Someone's feelings might be offended? .

    Where were those good people, when some commenters became personal, went to debasement tactics  (no pun intended) Did I see you heap scorn on those, who meant to offend others? 

    Where were your sensibilities then? Indulging yourself in delight, at Jollys comments?  

    I should listen to your one sided counsel?   

    The Nation is looking for solutions to the problems we face, and for you and a few others, whether you believe you are in the majority, you deprive others of hearing the solutions I offer.

    Do you realize how stupid  it is, I have not threatened anyone, but some get worked up over quoted words? For that I am to be….. scorned.

    Whats next impalement? Over nothing more than words.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 2:27pm

    nothing more than words.(?)

    Megabits, nay Gigabits of bandwidth die for your sins!  Oh, the humanity.....


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:39pm

    Sorry you took it that way.  You're right that I should have addressed it to all who take comments to a personal level.  It's never acceptable.

    I only ask that you consider responding to posts with comments focused on the issues.  It's when the comments are mainly general and could apply to any post that we get the compaints about spamming and hijacking.  Nobody wants to silence you or censor you. Not at this end, anyway.


    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:50pm

      Nobody wants to silence you

    You speak, of course, for yourself, when you say "nobody"


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 4:30pm

    You smear me with unkind words, intended to impune my motivation,  I have never considered myself higher;  that positon is reserved for you and your censorship team.

    You did seem to suggest that we atheists have no conscience. That's pretty damn smug right there, if you ask me.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 4:19pm

    I never suggested, i asked you a question, because I really wanted to know, what shapes an athiest' conscience?

    Instead you apologized, leaving it to others who built strawmen, but never really addressing the question I asked you.

    Now you come around days later, implying I suggested. I suppose I could go back and find the question, but I am of the belief you arent really interested in the Truth. Your only interested in finding fault with me personally. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 4:36pm

    What shapes an atheist's conscience?  What shapes a Christian's -- or his God's for that matter?

     


    by anna am on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:03pm

     Truth.

    The ungrammatical capitalization tells us everything we need to know...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:11pm

    If you're wondering where an atheist's sense of duty comes from, and, when one errs morally, what could motivate his guilt and remorse in the absence of a *divine* voice in his head, I think partly it can be understood in terms of the sentiments expressed in phrases such as

    - wanting to be able to look at oneself in the mirror

    - wanting to be able to look others in the eyes.

    I.e. it has to do with one's conceptions of one's better self - what kind of person one wants to be, and how one wants to shape one's relationships to others. In other words it can be distilled down to a sense of self-respect and respect for others. Wanting to deal honestly and honorably with oneself and others. Feelings that perhaps can be distilled further down to simply a love of one's fellow man (and of oneself). You don't need a relationship with a 'higher being' to have such sentiments and motivations and principles of reasoning.

    At least that is how this atheist functions.

    Thanks for your interest.


    by Obey on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:14pm

     self-respect and respect for others

    Well, now you are speaking (in my opinion, not offered as a personal slur, but merely to guide us towards fruitful intellectual interchange...) to R in a foreign language.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:20pm

    I'm there with you, Obey. That should answer the question. Now maybe we can get back to Glass Houses?

    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:23pm

    Glass houses part 2  "GO TO THE MIRROR" 

    Besides Ramona,  what prevented you from ever leaving off, that you now have to come back to.

    Or is this a veiled insult. Sleepin tried the same tactic.

    "Poor Barth, blame R for thinking outside the box."  

     


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:44pm

    In fairness to Barth, I'm suggesting that everybody go back to the topic, "Glass Houses".  I did not single you out. 


    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:15pm

    Ramona, the endless sniveling from Resistance where he plays victim has sucked you in.

    BTW, it would be helpful, when you edit a post, if you made your big footprint plain, to avoid the sort of misconstruction that you precipitated between Mage and myself.

    Thanks. 


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:50pm

    Thanks for your consideration, Obey, I will meditate on your comment. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:32pm

    May I add that unthinking obedience to a religion's prescriptive morality is something that a robot can perform.  Obedience to a *divine* voice in the head is merely an act that a person performs, like brushing their teeth or making the bed. It has nothing to do with the moral realm of justice and mercy, personal autonomy, liberty, equality, etc.

     


    by seashell on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:12pm

    Actually, I answered it quite explicitly - the love of our fellow man, AKA agape. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to believe in love.

    I also pointed out that using fear of God to shape your conscience is no better than using fear of getting caught.

    Of course, my reading of the New Testament always suggested it should be love of God and your fellow man that should shape a Christian's conscience anyways…


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 6:51am

    I must have missed your reply, can you find the link and I'll read what you wrote. 


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 7:01am

    I cannot find the story any more myself. Do you recall what the title of it was?


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 8:15am

     No I don't, sorry.

    If ever you should come across it. I'd be interested in reading the work you put into it.

    It’s frustrating I know to put so much thought into a reply and then lose the content.

    Recently the Dagblog site had trouble getting on, I had put so much effort in fine tuning my response, hit save and nothing, I’d lose the material. Now I just put it on Word, but sometimes in the speed in which we must respond to inquiring minds I get lazy

    Back to the reason for our discussion

    I saw a report, after my question to you, about Very young kids (children) in Africa, who are forced under threat of death to kill. They are trained to be killers. 

    One can only imagine their conscience, is influenced by the need to survive. And surrounded by other killers

    Their conscience would appear to be limited to survival. I use the Bible to train mine following footnotes and concordances, to really get the sense. I do this WORK, because I am mindful of a "divine" How did Obey or you may have said it, a divine voice in my head?  Then by meditation, it becomes so ingrained in me.

    That is why I asked you, and Obey was kind enough to give his well-stated opinion also. I thought how difficult for you, without a divine voice, of what do you draw upon to train then. 

    If  you go back to what I originally wrote way upstream, I was suggesting a National effort to get on a common page. Can an atheist and a Christian find that common book, so that all would be on the same page? 

    A National conscience to deal with the poverty, and the other major issues avoiding the divisive issues of the fundamentalists, who stand in the way of moving forward. 

    Again, can’t a fundamentalist reach a common ground on what is the National conscience of caring for the poor, the sick, the downtrodden 

    If we had all been on the same conscientious level of development, would healthcare have been better? 

    Imagine telling the Tea party “Hey it says in our conscience book, we must care for those in need, what could they say then, exposed as opposed to a National conscience 

    A thought just came to mind, was that the reason for the Red book of Mao of China? I may have to research that. 

    I’ve got to go and feed my elderly father

    Again thanks for trying to find your work. Maybe we can chat another time in exploring a National conscience. 


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 9:21am

    Can an atheist and a Christian find that common book, so that all would be on the same page?

    I think you and I are already closer to having a common "book" than you and many of your fellow soi disant "Christians" (including most of the politicians you were lamenting earlier). The commonalities between the New Testament and the Pali Canon are not a bad place to start. As I alluded to earlier, I think another commonality we can consider is that of agape. As for your ideal of using the New Testament as a law book, I don't think it'd do very well in that regards as it is a little too esoteric for most people to understand - hence one reason why there are so many different ways it is interpreted, including one little sect that engaged in something known as the Inquisition. (I'm not using the Inquisition to damn the NT, but rather to point out how followers of it frequently misunderstand it quite phenomenally.)


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 9:40am

    http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/

     


    by mageduley on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 2:17pm

    [I have removed this post.  No personal attacks, please.]


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:45pm

    Do you mean my link Jolly? R constantly equivocates scripture and morality. I cannot fathom how anyone can possibly think that is true. I offered the link above containing hundreds of examples of how scripturally derived morality is non existent. Man decides what is good in their "good books".I do not see how that can possibly be a personal attack. I am debunking his ideas, not his person.


    by mageduley on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:24pm

    Stab me and sink me! Confusion! Riot!

    I posted my rejoinder to R as a reply to you.  It said "Somewhere a corner is missing a nut". because I meant it as an "aside" between friends.

    Ramona chose to impute it (I won't cavil, correctly) as a reference to Resistance, she changed my post to the remark which you, evidently, thought was me talking to you. Rather clumsy of her, n'est ce pas?

    I find your cites enormously useful "Sam reads scripture so we don't have to...""

    The "personal attack" admonition was directed at my remark, which Ramona changed, and then failed to document her intervention, leading to your confusion.

    Shame on you, Ramona!


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:30pm

    Sorry, Jolly, but I think you could get your point across without calling names.  I see you got it in again, anyway.  I'll plead guilty to "clumsy" and leave it at that.


    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 8:29pm

    I dare say you will not be surprised to learn that I've been moderated before, on other boards...(how does that thing go, "I've been thrown out of better bars than this...?")

    Tha practice on Straight Dope, which is pretty closely moderated, is to remove the offending post and leave behind a clear indication that what once was there now is toast, together with a reference to the underlying reason, and a clear signature from the moderator.

    What you did to my post made it still appear to be my words, even tho I, of course, knew that the original was gone, and was in no doubt as to the reason, albeit there was no attribution left behind from you, so I could only guess, and others (in this case, Mage) were left to stumble about groping for clarity.

    For more, see my "Terms of use?" post.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 8:49pm

    I get your point, Jolly. My mistake. See my response in your "Terms of Use" post.

    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 8:56pm

    Sorry for the confusion, Mage.  


    by Ramona on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 8:32pm

    Ahhhh. It is fine Ramona. I get confused easily :)


    by mageduley on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 8:50pm

    Hi.  Me, again.  I read as much of this "debate" as I could stomach.  Not much, I fear.  I will defend your right to say what you want, Voltaire, and I continue to be against name calling.  Everything else posted after all this sturm and whatever else it was, is quite beyond my pedeatrian mind.

    In times of stress, I always call upon the great muse Regina Spektor,  As always, she fails me not:

    If I was a religion of me
    Then my church would surely have a schism
    They'd be regewish and registian and reguslim and reguddist and regatheists
    But they'd still be friends! All right!

     

     


    by Barth on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 5:24pm

    I think one can conclude, that any comment you make onward, is one of prejudice.

    This is pretty rich coming from someone who speaks so arrogantly. Humility is not about having the right intentions or holding oneself in little regard. Humility is the practice of not passing judgment upon people. You need more practice.


    by moat on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 2:29pm

    I list the scriptures so that people like you, can take it up with the author. We'll see who gets judged arrogant?   

    The Great Moat has spoken "You need more practice"

    That's rich coming from you, who feels he's complete.

    Who can judge the all wise Moat?  


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 2:41pm

    Judge away. I prize the quality of humility but most often fall short myself. It is difficult.

    You speak arrogantly. You call people liars and tell them to be ashamed. Pointing that out is not a judgment as much as it is an observation. 

    Use of the scripture doesn't offend me but condemning your interlocutor does. I am complaining about your behavior, not your beliefs.


    by moat on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:32pm

    We are living through the virtual equivalent of the guy in the bad neighborhood who doesn't have window bars when everyone else does....he gets burglarized every day...obviously R. has been banned from every other site on the internet but this one.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:48pm

     I did observe and out of your own mouth, you tripped yourself up. You were judging me and instead, it exposed your conduct your behavior.

    I too fall short many times.

    If you mean to imply that the virtuous nature of humilty is to cover over lies or failing to stand up for truth. You are mistaken.

    I suspect you are confusing humility with cowering?   

    Now instead of backing off with your judging me or my behavior, you come back for more, and you still can't see  it is you that speaks arrogantly. Judging me as lacking humility.  

    I call it as I see it, when people post things that are an outright lie. When someone makes a comment slandering God, claiming he's the fault of our problems; That's a lie. As far as my conscience is concerned, a person who spreads lies, IS A LIAR.

    Maybe your consience, excuses this type of behavior, But now you would convince others of your own rightousness, that my conduct or behavior should be brought to the fore. Who or what formed your conscience, that you'll excuse spreaders of lies and attack those who tell the truth? 

    Now sugar coat that, Tell  me how I should behave, all wise Moat, when confronted by those who tell lies. Expose the lies or cover over them. 

    ###

    You heard the Nation was lied into war, how should I have behaved? If I should protest or speak out, I am called arrogant, it is my behavior that is questioned?  

    (Matthew 7:3-5) 3 Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.

    Your own words judge you. I try to avoid using my own words, for fear those with rafters will try to scratch my eyes out. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:22pm

    I try to avoid using my own words

    Proving that if you babble long enough, you will stumble onto the truth.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:52pm

    Wasn't there something about an infinite number of monkeys that applies here ?


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:23pm

    That was my first choice, but I had already been disciplined for "personal attacks" and did not wish the reference to monkeys to doom my rejoinder.

    Ramona has a quick trigger finger, and is clumsy in its use, to boot.  See the above exchange between me and the aggrieved Mage.

     


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:44pm

    I said what I felt. Your response is really arrogant and assumes the worst of me. I am done talking with you.


    by moat on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:09pm

    Excellent comment, Red Planet. I especially appreciate the quote from the Declaration of Independence and your last paragraph.

    The Common Wisdom tells us that we are dependent upon a laissez faire free market economy for our security and our economic health and status. Government is an intrusion, at best, and a detriment to where we need to go to realize a successful future.

    And government is expensive, too. All those taxes, and nothing in return for it but limiting regulation and interference and incompetence and ... So says the Common Wisdom

    We've even managed to double-down on trickle-down economics, even though it has failed so miserably as measured by any metric such as comparative incomes, etc. How is this possible? It's because Common Wisdom tells us that the reason it has failed is because government refuses to get out of the way.

    Liberals haven't forged an answer, partly because they fear being labeled "socialists" in pointing out the legitimate role of government in protecting and promoting economic justice. But liberals fail mainly because we keep electing "liberal" pols who are so beholden to their campaign contributors that they must abide supporting the Common Wisdom or otherwise suffer potential loss of power.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:48am

    "But underlying the bravado and the racism and the anti-intellectualism of the Tea Party are fear, and loss, and a conviction that the government is not "legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests.""

    No.  The Tea Party are concerned that the government is no longer serving their interests, and they are the real Americans.  If you honestly think that they care about, for example, the bailouts except as a cudgel with which to beat Obama and the Democrats, you are hopelessly misguided.  Any policies that don't favor white, middle-class conservatives and don't discriminate against all others (unionized workers, minorities, etc.) are, in their view, not in the best interests of America.

    And if you honestly agree with the Tea Partiers and Tom Coburn (?!), then please don't claim you have America's best interest at heart.  You cannot honestly claim both.   

     


    by brewmn on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 10:35pm

    brewmn, what I said was that I agree with Tom Coburn and the Tea Party, that the question before us is this: Is the government legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests?

    Sorry if I didn't make that clear.


    by Red Planet on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 12:21am

    Latest Comments