January 17, 2005

Hate Crime in Jersey City

Ugh. What happened to Theo Van Gogh could happen to anyone. That means you.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 17, 2005 12:03 PM
Comments

As I said in my blog, "You Can Be A Homocidal Maniac... Just Not Around Here"!

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 17, 2005 12:49 PM

It doesn't have to happen to us. We should deport them. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't mean all muslims. Just the ones that hate america.

Posted by: Joćo at January 17, 2005 01:00 PM

Yes, it means me, too.

Posted by: Curtis at January 17, 2005 01:13 PM

Joao,

How are we supposed to find out who hates America and who doesn't? According to the likes of Ann Coulter, that would be approximately 50 percent of the American population.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 17, 2005 01:43 PM

Coutler's 50% doesn't include very many whose religion--or a mutant version thereof--commands such murders.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 17, 2005 01:47 PM

Yes, this is why it was such a good idea for you to re-elect George Bush. He'll create an atmosphere where this kind of thing won't happen.

Posted by: Jack Bog at January 17, 2005 01:54 PM

Jack Bog, you are obnoxious waste of oxygen. I hope when a politician whom I oppose enters the White House I will retain a shred of decency, because I would hate to become like you.

Posted by: R.F. at January 17, 2005 02:07 PM

It makes me feel sorry for the Muslims that they have to live in a country where they are forced by Bush's created atmosphere where they have no choice but to kill Christians because of their views on Islam.

No one should be forced to kill entire families.

Posted by: Jaybird at January 17, 2005 02:08 PM

Gee, Michael, you solved that crime pretty fast.

I guess we'd better kill those muslims before they kill us.

Posted by: Mork at January 17, 2005 02:23 PM

Hang on to your breast-plates folks. It's still early in the investigation, and all we have are statements from a "source, who had knowledge of the investigation, (who) refused to specify the anti-Muslim statement", and "a relative of the mayor who answered the phone at (the mayor's) home said there was information the murders were "religion-related".

Look, it wouldn't surprise me if this is a religiously-inspired hate crime, but I'd like to see the investigation take it's course, and charges laid after the investigation - by the police, not a bunch of wild-eyed bloggers.

Of course Americans love to shoot first and ask questions later. Remember WMD's?

Posted by: A.Canuck at January 17, 2005 02:28 PM

The Times has a piece on this story too:

Mourners Link Religious Feud to 4 Slayings

Bishop David said the church's members, about 2,000 families, have expressed deep fears since the killings.

"Many have felt that if this happened to one family it could happen to them," he said.

Throughout the day, the four-story church echoed with grief. Hundreds of people, cloaked in black, filled the building for the regular Sunday services. Friends of the young victims huddled crying as red-eyed adults shook their heads and embraced one other.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 17, 2005 02:35 PM

Michael: I don't believe that the people that actually hate america number more than 10% of households.

It's not as hard as you think. How was the FBI able to take down the klan? By spying on them. It didn't even take the whole fbi - the people at the top were thwarting the efforts of a few lonely and courageous field agents (gee, sound familiar).

Recruit middle eastern looking people that speak arabic. Send them into mosques all over the world - including the United States - with cameras and microphones. (Hell, I suppose they wouldn't even have to go inside, don't we have microphones that can listen through solid wall?)

This data would then be reviewed by a joint military-fbi-cia-any other agency you want to toss in there taskforce, and finally up to the president. Any mosque found to engage in planning, recruitment, or even merely incitement, would be blown up with a cruise missile. On a friday afternoon.

Posted by: Joćo at January 17, 2005 02:43 PM

Its early days but I'm thinking it was a muslim thing because of the wife and daughters being killed.

Lets hope the press stays on the law enforcement agencies and we find these pigs.

Posted by: Raymond at January 17, 2005 02:48 PM
According to the American Coptic Association of Jersey City, what happened to Theo Van Gogh can happen to anyone - who is Christian:
The Copts [in Egypt] are living in fear of being murdered or property destroyed their daughters being kidnapped, and being humiliated in their workplace and public places. They are surrounded by hatred from their Muslim citizens. Their situation is similar to that of the Jews during the Nazi domination in Europe before sending them to the gas chambers or the Armenians before they were massacred in Turkey in 1915.

WORLD, PLEASE WAKE UP: The Copts of Egypt, the largest Christian minority in the Middle East, have been subjected to a cruel, though subtle, campaign of the ethnic cleansing for the last thirty years. Hundreds of thousand of Coptic villagers have been forced to flee out of their homes and land due to such attacks, money extortion or abject poverty.
Given that political Islam has inflicted this sort of ethnic cleansing on Christians throughout the Middle East and Africa, it's not surprising that the police are considering this link.

Given that 'anti-Capitalists' are also in favor of political violence, it's not surprising that this link is being considered.

Posted by: mary at January 17, 2005 02:57 PM

Michael -

Welcome home. Sorry to see that the neighborhood has declined so much in your (brief) absence.

Fear in America? It's not "Selma all over again" in America. It's a free country, though; quite free enough for people to dabble in whatever paranoia they care to indulge in, in modest amounts. Have at it, and with gusto. All it costs you is national elections and the possibility you might be taken seriously in public debate. Think positive - Canada can't say no to political immigrants from America forever if they are willing to accept Taliban. Liberal courts up there, you know.

Funny thing about Christian Bushitler and the whole "scared muslim" trope; what exactly was the excuse before 2000? I mean, the smartest, most caring, most progressive president ever wuz presided over Blackhawk, WTC1, the Africa Embassy bombings, the Cole, and the odd jihadist murder of U.S. diplomats or military types... and over the largest military deployment in the decade, which defended the Kosovar Muslims. Did the bad guys ever make a case that a Republican majority in congress called for preemptive action? I'm sure I would have remembered that; CBS would have had it on 24/7.

Or did they just kill us because they knew it was a political act with low or no risk of meaningful response? They got so used to lopping off the odd infidel from the Great Satan they forgot that even watchers of reality shows have limits.

And they believed what our own press wrote about us, of course. Let's not forget that by every conceivable standard put up by our flagship media, the United States under G.W. Bush was leaderless, tottering on the brink of economic collapse, and flirting with evangelical fascism.

Oops - strike that last "flirting"; looking at some earlier comments I see that that is still an active issue among Voters Who Vote For Their Own Economic Interests.

I agree that the militant Muslims are angry, yea, and even fearful, now. I would be too if I knew that my barbarism was facing a finite limit that was approaching at speed. As far as our domestic Muslim population goes I doubt that one in a thousand gives any serious thought to the concept that they'll end up being beheaded, lynched, or even visited by DHS on any given day. I'd dearly love to see proof that "militant" is a label not accurately applied to our fellow citizens or legal immigrants that subscribe to Islam. I'd like to believe that the ongoing reticence to condemn jihadism on the part of Muslims/Muslim organizations living in western countries could be believably attributed to fear of reprisals... but that is not proving to be the case. Not yet, not with CAIR and suchlike organs leading the charge to represent Muslim opinion.

Which Muslim is in more danger? An imam in Michigan, or a pipefitter fixing the plumbing at a coed elementary school in Mosul? And I thought the Pope was on record against OIF; whatever could have caused the Archbishop of Iraq to enter the casting call for al Jazeera'a "Decapitation of the Week"?

When democracies outnumber thugocracies in the mideast and our troops are back at home among their families, when we buy their commodities at their prices and the capital exchanged there benefits the people instead of the dictators, all after confronting and defeating the enemy we know to be behind jihadism...

...what then will be the meme by which Bush and conservatism is condemned? That we waited too long? Spent too much money? That economic expansion in the newly freed socieities adversely impacts women and children most?

It's going to be a good year. A good four years, I think.

Posted by: TmjUtah at January 17, 2005 03:09 PM

Oh, it's those evil muslims again!

/channeling Benji

Posted by: David at January 17, 2005 03:18 PM

Mork: I guess we'd better kill those muslims before they kill us.

Even you have the capacity to astonish me sometimes.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 17, 2005 03:32 PM

So where are all the dead Liberals killed for badmouthing christianity? Anybody? Bueller?

Surely, if christians were as bad as they say we are, Liberal insolence and hate would have earned them dozens perhaps hundreds of martyrs by now (like Van Gogh), and they would have perhaps thousands in hiding like Salman Rushdie given their constant mockery of christianity and/or christians.

But they dont; not a single martyr or fugitive from the wrath of them "christers", even though the law of averages says they should have hundreds if indeed "Jerry Falwell" was to be feared like Osama. That's the Lefty platitude isn't it? "Rightwing" christians are just as bad aren't they?

It's a known fact that Libs don't fear violence from christians, that's why they're so cocksure in their slander against christians/christianity. But they know full well they'd be dead meat for saying the same thing about islam.

You're hypocritical little cowards hiding behind the freedom those damn christians have died protecting for you.

Posted by: David at January 17, 2005 03:37 PM

I've been reading a friend's great book called Unholy AllianceRadical Islam and the American Left.
I forget who wrote it, but they seem to have an intimate acquaintance with the leftist movement, and why leftists might sympathize with jihadists in their fight to destroy western civilization. Very intriguing.

Posted by: Shauna at January 17, 2005 04:09 PM

When the Lefties jumped into the sack with the jihadis, they got in way over their heads:

"ABC News has learned that the slain family’s cousin has been a translator working for the prosecution in the trial of Lynne Stewart. She is the radical [Leftist] lawyer accused of smuggling messages from imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to terrorist cell members and associates."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_011705_murderedfamily.html

Posted by: David at January 17, 2005 05:37 PM

When the ACLU sues to allow a woman to take a driver's license photo in a burqa, I think it's pretty obvious who is on whose side.

Posted by: Joćo at January 17, 2005 05:40 PM

It can happen to anyone?

You mean like the Sikh petrol pump attendant who was murdered after 9/11 because he was wearing a turban
and some ignorant punk thought he'd rid the world of
another evil muslim?

Posted by: mike at January 17, 2005 05:54 PM

Mike - Compare that one man murdered by an ignorant punk, to the 1 million + Sudanese murdered by an Islamist government

the hundreds of Egyptian Copts murdered by a well organized system of ethnic cleansing

the 3,000 New Yorkers murdered by Islamist state-sponsored paramilitaries

...and to this family who may have been killed by the same well-organized system of hate..

Compare that one impulsive, independent murder to this state sponsored program of hate and ethnic cleansing that has already killed 1 million + people, note how many of these same terror-supporting states also support Muslim advocacy groups like CAIR & the Muslim Brotherhood in the US and you can get some idea of the problem.

Posted by: mary at January 17, 2005 06:09 PM

Mike - Compare that one man murdered by an ignorant punk, to the 1 million + Sudanese murdered by an Islamist government.

Yeah, no kidding. If christians were like muslims, the U.S. would be a killing field of muslims and Liberals. In fact, it would very much resemble the atheist killing fields of the Soviet Union which shipped dissenters off by the cartload. Lucky for you, Mike, we're not like your muslims and atheists.

Check this out. In Pakistan, christians are executed for "blasheming" Allah:

"Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. — Pakistan Penal code: Offenses relating to religion: Section: 295-C"

Among the Christians currently awaiting trial for blasphemy is schoolteacher Parvez Masih. Supporters say he was falsely accused of blaspheming the prophet Mohammed by rivals who were jealous of his successful school.

http://www.releaseinternational.org/Current_news/99.asp

Posted by: David at January 17, 2005 06:21 PM

That's an amazing link about the translator, David. Stewart of course represents the sheikh who did the first WTC bombing.

I have a friend, a Copt, who is a refugee from Egypt. She speaks Arabic and I suggested she get a job with the govt post 9/11. She looked at me like I was a crazy child. Now I understand.

Posted by: Patricia at January 17, 2005 06:50 PM

Mike: You mean like the Sikh petrol pump attendant who was murdered after 9/11 because he was wearing a turban and some ignorant punk thought he'd rid the world of another evil muslim?

Well, yeah. I wouldn't compare what happened to the Sikh to what happened to Theo Van Gogh, but that was obviously a hate crime as well. I'm not sure what's up with your tone, though. Is one kind of hate crime worse than another? Unless the scale is larger, I'd have to say no.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 17, 2005 06:59 PM

Well, yeah. I wouldn't compare what happened to the Sikh to what happened to Theo Van Gogh, but that was obviously a hate crime as well. I'm not sure what's up with your tone, though.

No you can't compare them.

One murder was a racist act similar to an old-time lynching; the other was a targeted execution by a muslim hit team meant to silence western blasphemers on their own soil.

Posted by: David at January 17, 2005 07:05 PM

There are very few American leftists who hate America. Many are embarrassed, or think they are embarrassed, by America's actions and policies, but this is usually hyperbole. Most of the anger is because they love America and hate to see it "ruined". Of the people who threatened in high dudgeon to leave for Canada after the election, maybe 2% actually looked into it. Ninety percent of those who say that Bush should be killed would trip over their own feet to get invited to a White House function. They would smile and shake his hand and tell all their friends about it. Alcohol and politics make people say things they don't mean.

Male Muslim extremists between the ages of 15 and 39, however, represent a different order of reality. There is something about that particular point of view which subverts the collective assumptions of Civilization. When they say they hate America, and many do say it, even US citizens, they really mean it. If you tell one of these guys that he has bad breath and abuses children, he may not even take offense. But you need to be circumspect in discussing religious matters. If they say something in this regard, there is every chance they actually do mean it, no matter how crazy it may sound. When Bin Laden declared war on America, we laughed. When Theo Van Gogh was attacked, he thought he could talk reason with his attackers.

Until moderates are willing to moderate, we need to inoculate and isolate. Moderate Muslims, if such exist, cannot talk or act against the extremists any more than anyone else. Until they start doing so, we need to scrutinize the specific demographic intensely and prejudicially, and we need to deport all the extremists that we can. People who would kill an entire family in response to religious imprecations, would probably not hesitate to kill an entire city.

Posted by: jj USA at January 17, 2005 07:25 PM

What happened to Theo Van Gogh could happen to anyone. That means you.

Wrong.

Safe as houses in Hong Kong.

Too busy to hate here, mate.

Posted by: Benjamin at January 17, 2005 08:40 PM

I was thinking about this yesterday Michael and wondering why your site requires us to enter an email address. Any chance of changing that?

Posted by: Caroline at January 17, 2005 09:24 PM

Caroline,

I just changed it. Not because I'm paranoid, but because you asked and it's a reasonable request.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 17, 2005 09:41 PM

Benjamin,

You sound as though your high-minded hate-free liberalism somehow gives you a "get ouf of beheading free" card. You make it sound as if Van Gogh had it coming to him. If you're an American or a non-Muslim, that's all some of these terrorists need to know. You're an infidel to them just as much as the next guy.

Posted by: CP at January 17, 2005 09:42 PM

CP

I don't need a "get out of beheading free card".

The chances of me being beheaded in Hong Kong are about 50 trillion to one I would say.

This place has its problems but beheadings, violence, ethnic/religious hatred are not some of them.

And no, I don't think Van Gogh had it coming to him, don't be silly.

Posted by: Benjamin at January 17, 2005 10:02 PM

Thanks Michael! You may not be paranoid but I am (a little). Especially considering that your post rather ominously states "That means you"!

Posted by: Caroline at January 17, 2005 10:05 PM

The chances of me being beheaded in Hong Kong are about 50 trillion to one I would say.

That's because you're in HONG KONG you idiot.

Margaret Hassan wasn't in Hong Kong, now was she. It didn't save her life that she was a poor deluded Lefty apologist for arab thuggery, did it. It was enough that she had western blood running through her veins. That's all the excuse they needed. I almost wish they'd get their hands on your smug Lefty self.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 06:57 AM

I suppose, for the sake of argument, that this incident, was nothing more than a robbery gone wrong. I suppose it could have been a mafia hit, or even the Illuminati, Freemasons or Jack The Ripper, returned from the grave. Or, it could have been Muslim fanatics, so steeped in Dogma that they no longer have unfettered access to their own conscience.

I vote for the most likely option, which is obviously The Illuminati.

The Illuminati wants to keep Americans nervous and concerned. They want Americans to believe in the Muslim threat. That way, they can continue to direct the Administration like a puppet, protecting their financial interests in oil (where the Illuminati invests most of its capital). Obviously, the Illuminati killed these people in such a way that we would worry about muslim nihilism, here in the states...

(OK, I do admit that 'if' this turns out not to be a secret Illuminati plot, then it was quite possibly Muslim extremists, here in the US, exectuing a man and his family for exercising their freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But thats a big 'If'.)

(Never believe what you read, and only half of what I write)

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 07:46 AM

David,

"I almost wish they'd get their hands on your smug Lefty self."

Dude, that's harsh, unkind and really unchristian. For anyone to be harmed by morally deluded zealots is not cool.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 07:52 AM

that's why I said almost wish.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 08:09 AM

Almost?

So, because he's exercising his freedom of speech on a tiny blog island in the Internet Ocean, you Almost wish he were murdered by fanatic muslim thugs?

What the hell kind of priorities are those?

I'm no fan of GWB, I think that, at the very least, he's responsible for shoddy intelligence checking. If nothing else, he's in charge, so all the wrong Intel, falls on him. I would consider him more culpable than some guy spouting opinion on a blog. I still don't (even 'almost') wish that he would have an appointment with Dr. Kovorkian, let alone Muslim nihilists.

What in the hell is wrong with your conscience?

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 08:23 AM

come come now Tosk. You're being melodramatic.

I just want them to give smug Benji a good scare so I can hear him squeal, then release him.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 10:18 AM

I just want them to give smug Benji a good scare so I can hear him squeal, then release him.

I can almost see Jesus doing that too. The muscular Jesus, not the namby-pamby enemy-loving cheek-turning one.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 10:44 AM

Thus spake the Ancient Discordian Sages:

its called a conscience. its quite smart. pay attention to it. its very flexible and will automatically adjust for new paradigms; it is very difficult to beat with an intellectual assault

modern people find it quite difficult to get to. from day one others are trying to twist it to suit their own reality(or even their own self interests).

here is what your conscience is not;

  1. it is not the law. the law is a set of restrictions placed so as to perpetuate the status quo (aka by the establishment, for the establishment)
  1. it is not morality. morality is a set of restrictions used to cement loyalty to a mythology and the church that sells it.
  1. it is not cultural sensibility or political correctness. cultural sensibility is a set of restrictions arrived at randomly by memetic interaction and history.
  1. it is certainly not puritinism

while these things are ungoddessy travesties, it is wise to know them. try paying lip service to the first three; even though there is nothing wrong with taking an apple from an apple tree, the person who is convinced he 'owns' the tree may attack you, either personally or by police. (he thinks the police are his protectors, with a duty. you should understand that the police are a profession, with a job contract, whom you have to pay whether you use them or not. find ways of getting your money's worth.)

morality is easiest to ignore, while cultural sensibility should be subverted. make jokes about how ridiculous some protocols are, for example. find ways of getting around them whilst achieving their initial intent with greater efficiency.

puritanism is a tricky one. it stems mostly from morality, but even the atheistic will some-times see merit in it. abstinance from anything, properly performed, will only leave you with a lack of experience with that from which you abstained; not dancing will not make you a better person, it will simply make you a person who cannot dance.

your conscience isn't ethics, either, but ethics are a useful crutch to use until you find the real thing. it isn't altruism, but that can also be used as a crutch (you will be poorer but more popular than if you take the above path).
-----

I don't believe a word of it, but its absolutely correct. One wonders how many confuse conscience with unconscious Pavlovian responses....

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 10:57 AM

I can almost see Jesus doing that too. The muscular Jesus, not the namby-pamby enemy-loving cheek-turning one.

No double. Right now I'm speaking strictly as a secular humanist in the "public sphere". I'm keeping my faith "private" so to speak, so forget I've ever told you I'm a christian.

That way I won't impose my religious views on you.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 12:52 PM

I don't believe a word of it, but its absolutely correct.

Great. Then I can completely disregard whatever it is you posted.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 12:54 PM

Right now I'm speaking strictly as a secular humanist in the "public sphere". I'm keeping my faith "private" so to speak, so forget I've ever told you I'm a christian.

Nice try, but uuuummm, no.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 01:02 PM

Nice try, but uuuummm, no.

LoL!

ok, fine. I'll therefore assume that you only really object to religion in the public sphere when your Lefty immorality is the issue.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 01:18 PM

that you only really object to religion in the public sphere when your Lefty immorality is the issue.

Point to a single instance where I objected to religion. Anywhere.

While I'm an atheist, I count among my close friends evangelical Christians, JWs, Catholics, Jews, and those wierdo neo-Pagan religions that I have a hard time not making fun of.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 01:30 PM

Point to a single instance where I objected to religion. Anywhere.

Not you personally. You're just standing in for all your Lefty buddies right now.

I had a long debate with Tosk a few weeks back about how christians aren't allowed to make arguments on issues of public concern if they're based on our religious views (see abortion) because that would be "imposing our religion" on you people. Keep it "private" your Lefty buddies tell us. I told him (and he eventually agreed), that a religious justification is just as valid as an atheist justification re issues in the public sphere, and that there's nothing "unconstitutional" about it.

Now, to my pleasant surprise, I find a Lefty who wants me to speak as a christian. Well by golly, I damn sure will then. And I'll remind all my fundie pals who voted for Bush that they can too.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 02:02 PM

Great. Then I can completely disregard whatever it is you posted.

David, my friend, you can disregard anything anyone writes on this board. In fact, I would encourage that over wishing that someones life were in peril.

In fact, I highly recommend it... perhaps it is even the reason that I wrote the previous post. Perhaps, by your very act of disregard, you've felt the full force of the point. Or, perhaps the fact that you are defending your previous post of ill-will, is so terribly funny to me that I couldn't resist my Discordian calling.

There once was a blogger fanatic,
whose morals, it seemes, were erratic,
Beheadings were foul,
he often would howl,
Unless a liberal's under the mattock.

(OK, I know that they usually use knifes, not mattocks, but I really like the visual of David swinging a Mattock at a donkey)

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 02:08 PM

You're just standing in for all your Lefty buddies right now.

All my leftie buddies are fine with religious beliefs.

I had a long debate with Tosk a few weeks back about how christians aren't allowed to make arguments on issues of public concern if they're based on our religious views (see abortion) because that would be "imposing our religion" on you people.

The source of your beliefs are your own concern, of course, and you're welcome to bring them into debate if they'll help either illuminate the discussion by framing its context, or by helping convince the other side.

Me, I think the source of the beliefs is largely irrelevant to the discussion of ethics on abortion. As far as I'm concerned, there is very little in the Bible that would frame one's opinions on when a blastocyst should be considered a life with all the inherent rights, or even superceding rights on the mother. Even if there were, why should that convince me?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 02:15 PM

Rat, you have a gifted muse. Or way too much time on your hands.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 02:17 PM

David,

I was once told, in my Christian days, that Christians don't ever, "speak as a Christian" "think as a Christian" or "debate as a Christian". Christians either are or are not Christ-like.

Christ didn't wish a single lash on the men nailing him to the cross. You wished a horrific life-altering event on someone cause they pissed you off on blog.

Only you know your faith, only you know your relationship with whatever-it-is-that-you-worship. Me? I just look at inconsitancies and think "Ah, more human error."

Is this really something that you not only want to defend, but also want to tack your faith onto?

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 02:20 PM

dpu,

I'll guess "way too much time".

Or, maybe that muse I had at 4:20

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 02:22 PM

double: All my leftie buddies are fine with religious beliefs.

I highly doubt that.

As far as I'm concerned, there is very little in the Bible that would frame one's opinions on when a blastocyst should be considered a life with all the inherent rights,

Actually, there's plenty in the Bible that would frames "one's" opinion about this; but of course, that depends on who "one" is.

The source of your beliefs are your own concern,

You say that now. Next time one of your Lefty buddies accuses someone of "legislating their morality" I hope you'll remember it.

Even if there were, why should that convince me?

It doesn't have to convince you. It just has to convince me, and when "I legislate my morality" you just have to obey, just like I have to obey when you legislate yours.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 03:34 PM

You wished a horrific life-altering event on someone cause they pissed you off on blog.

Bless your little heart Tosk. But I'm not sure what you imagine I'm "defending".

That Benji have some sense scared into him?

It'd be the best thing that ever happenned to him.

Getting mugged by reality is a "life-altering event." And such life-altering events can be extremely beneficial things you know. It's called growing up. That's all I wish for him. That he meet face to face with reality. Some people need that face to face meeting, other's don't. Benji does, most Libs do. That's why many conservatives are just Libs who got mugged by reality. But most Libs are stuck in perpetual adolescence-- life is one big college experience.

cheers

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 03:45 PM
double: All my leftie buddies are fine with religious beliefs.

I highly doubt that.

As I think we've all seen, you have a pretty extensive inner projection of what a leftist is that has very little to do with the real world. Many "lefties" that I know have religious beliefs, or, like myself, come from a religious background, and who choose to repect that others have cherished beliefs of faith that, no matter how unlikely or bizarre, must be respected. And leftists with a strong individualist and anti-authoritarian background have an especially strong commitment to not fucking around with other's spiritual beliefs.

Actually, there's plenty in the Bible that would frames "one's" opinion about this; but of course, that depends on who "one" is.

Example?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 03:45 PM

Many "lefties" that I know have religious beliefs, or, like myself, come from a religious background, and who choose to repect that others have cherished beliefs of faith that, no matter how unlikely or bizarre, must be respected.

Bizarre is the key word. To a Lefty, the more bizarre, the more respectable. Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too. Even the Taleban became respectable to the Left when the Taleban became identified with anti-west.

Traditional western beliefs aren't respected by the Left, though anything that serves to undermine those traditional western beliefs is. (That reminds me, the villain in The Incredibles sequel will be the Underminer. I look forward to it.)

Example?

Example of specific verses? They're not hard to find. Here are some:

"You [God] knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15).

"You [God] have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11).

Not that it matters to you.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 04:28 PM

the more bizarre, the more respectable. Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too.

Yeah, those bizzare religions that existed for thousands of years before half their customs were swiped for that new-fangled christianity.

Totally bizzare.

(While I agree that many non-christians are inappropriately harsh on Christians as compared to the rest of the Worlds Religions, it's statements like the quoted one that make christians just such special targets.)

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 05:16 PM

Yeah, those bizzare religions that existed for thousands of years before half their customs were swiped for that new-fangled christianity.

bizarre: Strikingly unconventional and far-fetched in style or appearance.

What does the age or history of the religion have to do with bizarre? If I introduced Canaanite child sacrifice back into existence, would it's age and history make it any less bizarre?

Use some logic mr. Liberal.

Posted by: David at January 18, 2005 05:32 PM

Use some logic mr. Liberal.

Ehehehehehe...

If you can't find a category for it, just call it a liberal.

ROFL

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 18, 2005 07:29 PM

i>Bizarre is the key word. To a Lefty, the more bizarre, the more respectable. Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too. Even the Taleban became respectable to the Left when the Taleban became identified with anti-west.

Oh for Pete's sake, get a grip David, your wheels came off a few blocks back and you're running on your hubs at this point. Leftists do this, liberals hate that, moonbats are this, yakkity yakkity yak, blah blah blah.

The basis of any real discussion is that both parties are sincere. If you can't accept that, and keep bringing up these juvenile and laughable strawman representitives to debate, then all you're doing here is verbally whacking off in front of an audience.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 07:55 PM

Let's try that again, with proper HTML...

Bizarre is the key word. To a Lefty, the more bizarre, the more respectable. Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too. Even the Taleban became respectable to the Left when the Taleban became identified with anti-west.

Oh for Pete's sake, get a grip David, your wheels came off a few blocks back and you're running on your hubs at this point. Leftists do this, liberals hate that, moonbats are this, yakkity yakkity yak, blah blah blah.

The basis of any real discussion is that both parties are sincere. If you can't accept that, and keep bringing up these juvenile and laughable strawman representitives to debate, then all you're doing here is verbally whacking off in front of an audience.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 18, 2005 07:56 PM

double,

it's not a strawman.

Tosk,

fine, you're not a Liberal, but you often step into their shoes.

Posted by: David at January 19, 2005 07:01 AM

David,

fine, you're not a Liberal, but you often step into their shoes.

Ewwww, no! Do you know what kind of foot fungus those Liberals have?!

So, David, why don't you point out where my Liberal footwear fetish showed up in this discussion? I'm looking and looking and I can't find anything Liberal in any of my posts on this topic... so why the label?

I do admit that while I shy away from Liberal Shoes, Ms. Garofalo 's hose would look good on me, don't you think.

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 19, 2005 08:14 AM

Tosk: Yeah, those bizzare religions that existed for thousands of years before half their customs were swiped for that new-fangled christianity.

Without addressing the merits or validity of the above statement, if you were to guess from this statement the identity of the person making it, would you say such person was a) Liberal, or b) conservative?

I think the answer is pretty clear.

And let me reiterate, the actual merits of the above statement are an entirely different matter (which I'd be glad to adress too if you like).

Posted by: David at January 19, 2005 10:07 AM

Tosk: Yeah, those bizzare religions that existed for thousands of years before half their customs were swiped for that new-fangled christianity.

David: Without addressing the merits or validity of the above statement, if you were to guess from this statement the identity of the person making it, would you say such person was a) Liberal, or b) conservative?

I would assume that they were a person who had researched theology quite a bit. I would also assume that they were pointing out a terribly biased statement in order to poke at an occasionaly theophobic poster.

You were ranting about how Christians are villified, while in the same set of posts denigrated every religion other than the one you personally approve of. If only Liberals point out that sort of wrongheaded thinking, then perhaps I am liberal in that respect. I didn't know Liberals had a monopoly on correcting bigotry. (Though from looking at the stereotypical Republican... one begins to wonder).

In my personal view, I would say that anyone, Liberal, Conservative or neither can show respect for anothers beliefs. If you based my political leanings on the fact that I don't agree that non-christian religions are bizarre, then you have some serious problems. If only Liberals welcome people of non-traditional faiths, then I fear a Conservative America.

As for the validity of what I stated, I can list many, many, many customs, festivals, and beliefs that were lifted from those 'bizzare' religions (or from the older religions upon which those new 'bizzare' religions are based). However, that's likely to be a nasty fight, so perhaps we should take it to private email.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 19, 2005 12:49 PM

I would assume that they were a person who had researched theology quite a bit.

Tosk,

you are making the same mistake that most Libs make when you assume that "information" is the issue. The chasm isn't between those with information vs those w/o information (you vs. the rest of us knuckledraggers). I too have information about theology, christianity, paganism, etc. I know about syncretism and mithraism and Constantine and druids and St. Patrick and Woden, etc. So do many religious conservatives. We study that shit. But that makes no difference.

(In fact, this is what leads me to despair-- that we all basically have the required "information", and yet we will not agree with each other, because something else other than "information" is at the crux of it.)

To you, it's relevant that christianity replaced the druids. To me, it makes not one whit of difference. Why? Because to me, we're living in a judeo-christian paradigm, and all else is measured against this paradigm. This is the norm and the standard. I consider it to be a superior paradigm, time tested and handed down to us by our forefathers from antiquity, and even by God himself. All else is strange and bizarre next to it. Not necessarily strange and bizarre per se, but strange and bizarre when measured against that standard. Not even strange and bizarre in a negative manner. I can easily concede there was good in prior paradigms. But they are strange and bizarre nonetheless, and that is both a value statement (my personal preference), as well as a statement of fact (as measured against the norm).

To you, on the other hand, everything is bizarre, or nothing is bizarre, no difference. To you, one religious paradigm happens to be on top at the moment, but aside from that you give it no particular or inherent value outside of that. You have no stake in any particular religious paradigm because all are equall false, or equally true. That's the thinking of the moral relativist (I'm not saying you're immoral). That's the thinking of the Left. You sir, are steeped in Leftist thinking (Though I'll give you credit, you're not an ideologue. Yet I can identify it in your statements). We are all subject to a paradigm, and most of the time we don't even know the origins of that paradigm. I know mine. Do you know yours?

Anyway, this is far better suited to face to face discussion than to blogging. I don't think I'm doing the subject justice, plus I have to study.

Posted by: David at January 19, 2005 02:05 PM

and ps.

this country was built by christians and is the most tolerant country the world has ever seen. Christians don't go around patting ourselves on the back about it, because we don't give it that much thought. But we also have nothing to apologize for in that regard. The intolerance only started just recently, ironically by those claiming "tolerance" as their standard. But you already know what I think about that.

Posted by: David at January 19, 2005 02:12 PM

you are making the same mistake that most Libs make when you assume that "information" is the issue.

Don't I wish. If the problem were information, it could easily be fixed.

I don't know that there is a "problem" so much as a perception. If you would care to examine my original post on your use of the term 'bizzare', we would find some context to my statements... shall we take a trip down blog memory lane?

David saidBizarre is the key word. To a Lefty, the more bizarre, the more respectable. Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too. Even the Taleban became respectable to the Left when the Taleban became identified with anti-west.

Tosk repliedYeah, those bizzare religions that existed for thousands of years before half their customs were swiped for that new-fangled christianity.

Totally bizzare.

(While I agree that many non-christians are inappropriately harsh on Christians as compared to the rest of the Worlds Religions, it's statements like the quoted one that make christians just such special targets.)

Notice the ending. I agree with you that Christians are unfairly maligned. The entire point of that post was that you made an example of WHY Christians get so maligned. Unintentional, hopefully, but there. A fundamental lack of respect for someone elses faith, a derision of what is different. That is not a problem of information. It's a problem of the mind and the bad programming that the majority are often saddled with. Not all Christians are like you, there are some that I have met who are open to all people and prejudge none. I've met Christians worse than you, I was one once. Those who are absolutely determined that if you aren't exactly following their path, then you are bizzare... strange... perhaps even inspired of the devil.

It's dogma. "I Know The Truth About The Invisible People, Because My Preacher/Pastor/Priest/Priestess/Goddess/God/Monkey/Science Teacher Said So And Any Other Idea Is Bizzare!"

Jehovah God, The Almighty had shown me the truth. He showed me from the scriptures and history that Hell and the Trinity were false teachings and all other Christian religions were demonic. So were those bizzare Pagans, those weird Hindus and Muslims, anything not worshipping Jehovah was false!

I had the same view as you once. Even though I had information about my own religion, which should have caused me to at least entertain that I may be wrong, I had Faith that I was right.

The only difference between you and the old me, was that I included you in the 'bizzare' group.

-----

To you, on the other hand, everything is bizarre, or nothing is bizarre, no difference. To you, one religious paradigm happens to be on top at the moment, but aside from that you give it no particular or inherent value outside of that. You have no stake in any particular religious paradigm because all are equall false, or equally true. That's the thinking of the moral relativist (I'm not saying you're immoral). That's the thinking of the Left.

You completely miss my point. It doesn't matter if I believe that all or none are correct, or if you believe in the "one true religion". My stance is not that you should believe differently, or that your beliefs are the same, just in different clothes... the point, that you so often miss, is that one should have a basic respect for another's faith, a basic respect for another's preferences and a basic respect for dissident opinion.

If showing respect is a Leftie attitude...

hrmmm.......

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 20, 2005 08:20 AM

the point, that you so often miss, is that one should have a basic respect for another's faith, a basic respect for another's preferences and a basic respect for dissident opinion.

I don't think I miss the point at all. Actually, you do. Let me explain.

What you and I disagree about is what the word "respect" means. To you, "respect" means I must acknowledge that all beliefs are equal, and to claim my belief as superior is "intolerant."

But to me, "respect" means that even though I believe you, Tosk, have silly kooky beliefs I still give you the same rights as I have to hold those kooky beliefs and to express them. THAT is respect. But by no means do I need to accord your beliefs some inherent value that I simply don't believe they have in order to be "respectful" of them, nor should I pretend to believe they have an inherent value I simply don't belief they have.

That's the difference between the "respect" of the moral relativist (he believes all are equal) vs. the respect of the moral objectivist (your belief is silly, but you have the right to belief it if you choose).

Not only is my respect more honest than yours, but more realistic. Your "respect", on the other hand, can only be honest if you, Tosk, believe in nothing. Otherwise, you're just mouthing platitudes about "respect."

Let me show you how dishonest and unrealistic your "respect" is. You say you respect all beliefs as equal, yet you've just disrespected my beliefs, see here:

Tosk: Jehovah God, The Almighty had shown me the truth. He showed me from the scriptures and history that Hell and the Trinity were false teachings and all other Christian religions were demonic. So were those bizzare Pagans, those weird Hindus and Muslims, anything not worshipping Jehovah was false!

Here, you show what I fool I am for actually believing what I do. You, Tosk, also used to be such a fool, but no longer. You've attained "truth." Fine. But my point is this:

You have "disrespected" (under your definition of respect, not mine) my belief that truth is absolute and that my beliefs are the closest to the truth.

But notice, it's only disrespect under YOUR false definition of respect, not mine! To me, you have every right to think my beliefs are kooky, as long as you don't infringe on my right to have those beliefs. THAT's respect.

My definition of "respect" is genuine and workable. Your's is a fake, toucy feely, new-age-of-moral-relativism respect, and in name only.

Therefore, when I believe something is "bizarre", I am within my rights as long as I don't prevent you from practicing your bizarre kooky beliefs.

And get this, if you disagree with me about this, it's YOU that is now "disrespecting" me! And that is the conundrum of your false LEFTIST "tolerance"--you say nothing is absolute, therefore to claim an absolute is "intolerant". Yet YOU HAVE JUST MADE AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT.

That is Leftist man-made wisdom vs judeo-christian biblical wisdom. I choose the latter--and not because I'm stupid and uninformed.

Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 10:52 AM

Truly David, you have a dizzying intellect.

That's the difference between the "respect" of the moral relativist (he believes all are equal) vs. the respect of the moral objectivist (your belief is silly, but you have the right to belief it if you choose).

Alas David, this is not what I'm saying at all. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ALL BELIEFS ARE EQUAL. I do believe that all beliefs are due, at least, a modicum of courtesy and respect.

Your original post decried the Unfair treatment of Christians by Leftists. I agreed with you that their treatment of Christians is often unfair. However, it is, many times, connected to unthinking, discourteous words and deeds perpatrated by some Christians. You yourself are a paragon of discourteous statements, especially when they concern someone elses religion or political beliefs. Republicans are often maligned for being intolerant, but its not all or even most Republicans who fit that shoe, only the few, the loud, the thoughtless.

Here, you show what I fool I am for actually believing what I do.

Not unless you are one of Jehovah's Wittnesses.

You, Tosk, also used to be such a fool, but no longer. You've attained "truth.

I used to be a fool and I regularly review my thinking and still find foolish thoughts (like trying to reason with anyone on a Blog). I haven't attained 'truth'. I'm not telling you that you are wrong and I am right. I'm not even telling you that those 'bizarre' religions are 'as right' as yours.

But notice, it's only disrespect under YOUR false definition of respect, not mine! To me, you have every right to think my beliefs are kooky, as long as you don't infringe on my right to have those beliefs. THAT's respect.

No, that's tolerance. You tolerate that which you do not agree with, usually with groanings and utterances. Respect, in my mind differs from tolerance, because tolerance is simply restraining yourself from attacking someone you disagree with. Respect, I think, is a fundamental esteem for your fellow man. To respect their religion, may not mean that one must accept it as plausible, likely or even remotely possible. Respect, does however, cause one to refain from publicly making snide or degrading comments. They treat that person's religion, as they would like that person to treat theirs. That's respect. (I think one of your prophets said somethig about that).

Christians are great at tolerance. Unfortunately, due to a fundamental lack of respect, Christians are, ironicly, often on the wrong side of the Golden Rule. By, tolerating other's beliefs, instead of respecting them... the Christians themselves are tolerated without respect by many.

when I believe something is "bizarre", I am within my rights as long as I don't prevent you from practicing your bizarre kooky beliefs.

I agree with you completely on this point! However, what is 'your right' is much different than what is 'right', don't you think? After all, it's my right to tell the world that I think your secretly a homosexual... it wouldn't be right, it wouldn't be respectful, but it would be MY RIGHT. One can think, believe and say anything that they want, it is their right. However, if you (and many vocal people in your religion) exercise that right by making derogatory statements, don't be surprised if people respond by treating you in a derogatory way. Look at your original posts about the Left embracing "bizarre" religions.

Bizarre is the key word. To a Lefty, the more bizarre, the more respectable. Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too. Even the Taleban became respectable to the Left when the Taleban became identified with anti-west.

To a Lefty, the more bizarre, the more respectable.

What sort of statement is that? The Left encompasses people who deride all religion, who are devout Christians, preachers, pastors, Buddahists and Hindus, New Agers and Jews. Your statement is simply ridiculous hyperbole, valuable only in denigrating that which doesn't fit with your world view.

Wiccan beliefs are respected, I know that, or basically any non-western religious belief is respected, I know that too.

Wiccans, Hindus, Thelemites, Discordians, Asatru, Pagans, Buddahists etc etc etc are usually respectful, regarding one anothers beliefs. Many Christians are as well. However, there are a few in each group who are different. Usually, a loud few, ready to ruin everyone's perception of the whole group.

Some disrespectful Pagans have a problem with "fluffy bunnies". The fluffy bunnies are the Pagans that believe in Life and Love and Light. The Pagans that believe in Light and Dark (Good and Bad both being necessary), can't stand the fluffies. They call them 'bizarre'. They tolerate them (no one has lynched a fluffy yet), but they do not respect them. In response, the 'fluffies' don't respect the 'serious' pagans. Your arguments and those of the Non-Fluffies are almost identical.

Meanwhile, some Christians treat the 'serious' Pagans just like the 'serious' pagans treat the Fluffies. In response, the 'serious' Pagans treat the Christians like the fluffies treat the 'serious' Pagans. The circle goes round and round and round.

There are lefties who are just as intolerant as you, they just have a slightly different frame of reference.

Traditional western beliefs aren't respected by the Left, though anything that serves to undermine those traditional western beliefs is.

This is a very silly statement. I think Jesse Jackson respects Christianity. I think that the large majority of 'Lefties' who are Christian respect Christianity. There are lots of Lefties who respect Democracy, there are lots of Lefties that respect Capitalism. Most Lefties I know don't respect the Taleban at all. Your statements aren't only incorrect, they're disrespectful.

If you cannot see that, then you should pray for guidance.

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 20, 2005 01:24 PM

I do believe that all beliefs are due, at least, a modicum of courtesy and respect.

That pretty much encapsulates your entire post. And I would fully agree. I don't think I've said anywhere that civility isn't in order, nor have I even been uncivil to someone of a different religion. I've had a pagan roommate, and we were respectful of each other. But I know what he thought, and he knew what I thought. Therefore, I retain the right to think his beliefs are bizarre. Yet, I'm a great supporter of civility in discourse, so just because I think someone is ugly or stupid or has dumb ideas doesn't mean I'm going to walk up to his face and tell him so. If I think someone's beliefs are bizarre and kooky, that doesn't mean I'm going to walk up to him and declare it kooky and bizarre. What I will do is talk to him on the merits of his ideas, without resorting to ad hominems. If he considers that an insult, then I guess tough luck. We don't have to talk about it anymore then. And I'll still think his beliefs are bizarre. So to close on a note in which we can both agree, I do think many beliefs are bizarre and kooky (and I reserve that right), but I would not disrespect the believer himself by giving him my unsolicited opinion and hurting his feelings. But don't forget! That doesn't mean I "respect" his beliefs! I merely respect his humanity. So let me reiterate, that doesn't mean I "respect" his beliefs. Because I don't. Only his humanity.

Above, I don't think I've disrespected anybody's humanity on this post, despite my opinion that I consider modern paganism to be bizarre.

You originally attacked my right to believe that modern paganism is bizarre. It was some sort of a crime in your book. Only subsequently did you then decide to dress me down for being discourteous. If I've been discourteous to someone, please let me know to whom, and I'll quickly apologize to him. But I haven't. Therefore, I believe you have amended your original position, and I have merely clarified mine. You're now saying it's ok for me to believe it's bizarre but that I should be courteous. I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 01:57 PM

Your original post decried the Unfair treatment of Christians by Leftists.

and ps., I'm not decrying it, i.e., I'm not asking for Leftist respect. I'm merely stating the obvious. It's a war, they know it's a war, and we know it's a war. That's all. We see this war in their agenda, in their lawsuits against us, and in their statements. We will not ask for, nor receive, respect from them, nor tolerance. Christianity is their target, as well as other pillars of western culture. They seek to destroy the current paradigm and replace it with their own. Maybe you don't see it, but that's only because you don't have our view, you're not sitting in our chair. Heck, you probably support them. That's fine, but don't deign to tell us WE'RE the intolerant ones.

Posted by: at January 20, 2005 02:16 PM

You originally attacked my right to believe that modern paganism is bizarre. It was some sort of a crime in your book. Only subsequently did you then decide to dress me down for being discourteous. If I've been discourteous to someone, please let me know to whom, and I'll quickly apologize to him. But I haven't. Therefore, I believe you have amended your original position, and I have merely clarified mine. You're now saying it's ok for me to believe it's bizarre but that I should be courteous. I wholeheartedly agree.

Dear gods and goddesses,

This entire time, I have been telling you the same thing. I don't care what you believe, but one should be respectful and courteous. It is not respectful or courteous to call someone elses beliefs bizarre(no matter what your private opinion). You could have gotten your same point across by stating "anything non-western"... but then Wicca is a western religion, just like most of the Pagan religions.

My primary post was pointing out the irony in your post. You derided an entire swath of spiritual beliefs(since there is no 'Pagan' belief system, but a myrriad of different religions that get called "Pagan"), in an effort to further villify your favorite demon, The Left.

I've had a pagan roommate, and we were respectful of each other. But I know what he thought, and he knew what I thought. Therefore, I retain the right to think his beliefs are bizarre.

So since you know the beliefs of a "Pagan" (which is a big generic term for dozens of religions), you feel that you have enough knowledge to call it all Bizarre... is that what you're saying?

Was he Wiccan? Was he Asatru? Was he a Satanist? Was he a Thelemic? Was he Otherkin? Was he a Druid? These religions have completely different religious views and beliefs. How could your knowledge of one individuals beliefs ever justify your blanket statement and be anything other than disrespectful and discourteous?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, I suppose. I thought to make a point, an Christian enraged by disrespect from the left, while spouting the exact same disrespect for others.

If that basic point is lost on you, then this entire thread has been an effore in futility.

As the wise man once said: Arguing on the Internet is Like being in the Special Olympics... win or lose, you're still retarded.

I need to remember that more often.

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 20, 2005 02:35 PM

As the wise man once said: Arguing on the Internet is Like being in the Special Olympics... win or lose, you're still retarded.

I agree, it rarely pays off. But it's fun no?

Dude, the Left can disrespect me all they want. They already do. I merely recognize that fact, I'm not pleading for their mercy. Why should I? I disrespect the hell out of them too. I was merely telling DPU that I was well aware of that simple fact despite his standard Lefty dissembling about it.

She was some kind of new ager and big time into "shakras" and re-incarnation and "energy meridians". I humoured her (but I don't respect her beliefs ;-)

That's all I'm saying, and then you jumped all over my ass. Whatever.

Posted by: at January 20, 2005 02:43 PM

oh, and a HUGE ps.,

I don't consider such harmless little pagans to be a threat. They're amusing. It's the secular Left that is the threat, they're not amusing. The ACLU and Michael Newdows of the Left. And when they're done with christianity they'll probably go after the harmless pagans next, certainly after islam.

Posted by: at January 20, 2005 02:47 PM

"you probably support them"

I'd like an apology. While I may not personally believe that Christianity is the right thing for me, I have never supported any political movement to disinfranchise any religious group.

I fully support the right for JW's, Mormons, Evangelicals and anyone else who wants to, to preach from door to door. I fully support the right for a Child to pray in school. I support the right for a teacher to pray in school. I would prefer that the teacher use a forum other than the main classroom, but thats mostly so other people won't get pissed off. I support the right for Children to be told that evolution is a theory, and a shaky one at that. I think that Science Textbooks should have stickers saying that every statement in the book should be questioned and discussed.

I support the right for Christians to put up displays at Christmastime. I also support the right for Jews and Pagans to put up displays for their holidays.

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean that I agree with your "enemies".

I thought that would be clear by now.

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 20, 2005 02:48 PM

I am very heartened to hear that. You have my most profuse apologies my dear sir. And I mean that.

;-)

Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 02:52 PM

Ok David, Truce then.

I accept your apology and we'll mark it up to the heat of the debate. I've had to ask the same courtesy of you, when I've gone off on a tangent ;-)

Posted by: Ratatosk at January 20, 2005 03:06 PM

Posted by: Jaybird / January 17
He said: They have no choice but to kill Christians because of their views on Islam.

Jaybird, may i remind you that Freedom of speech is one of America's founding principles of our
great Country. If it would of been a Christian or Jew that killed a Islamic muslim because of his
view's on Christianity or Judaism would you still feel the same? Or are you just a mouth piece for
radical islam? Sounds like it to me!!!!!!!!!! I do not look at Islam as a peaceful religion, it is nothing short of a satanic cult, who have truly confused GOD and satan, and have seriously damaged GOD'S gracious name by using him to spread their hatred and the slaughtering of innocent men, women and babies around the world.

Posted by: Kelly at January 24, 2005 10:39 AM

Thieves murdered them because they were dissed. Maybe. Great new conspiracy theories have been spawned! Reaction to the news of arrests:

http://thewoman.blogspot.com/2005/03/msm-and-copt-killings.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005241.php

Posted by: jj at March 16, 2005 08:31 AM

A spam generator is tacking spam telomeres onto the ends of these threads. Spam spam spam. I suspect it resides on the server.

Posted by: jj at March 24, 2005 09:04 PM

Songtexte

Posted by: Vasko at June 4, 2005 04:06 PM

Chat | Songtexte | Songtexte | Songtexte | Songtexte | Songtexte | Songtexte | Chat

Posted by: Vasko at June 6, 2005 01:39 PM

praca za granicą

Posted by: at June 26, 2005 01:32 AM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 5, 2005 01:31 PM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino

Posted by: online casinos at October 5, 2005 10:58 PM

http://thecasinobonus.bravehost.com/
casino

Posted by: casino archives at December 20, 2005 10:09 AM

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
domy opieki

Posted by: epart at December 23, 2005 03:57 AM

http://www.blogger.com/profile/16433675

Posted by: casino archives at December 23, 2005 01:20 PM

runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape2store.com">runescape gold wow power leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">Warcraft PowerLeveling buy

runescape gold buy runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-

runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-runescape-accounts-c-599_988.html">runescape accounts <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-

1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c-389.html">Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c

-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buylotrogold.org">buy lotro gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buy-lotro-gold.cn">buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-

975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.800millions.com">runescape money runescape power leveling <a

href="http://www.runescape2vip.cn">runescape money runescape gold <a

href="http://www.buydofuskamas.com">dofus kamas cheap runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape4money.net">cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-

1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London

Palladium Hellgate money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold

buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold

Hellgate London gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/dofus-c-891.html">dofus kamas buy

dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 <a

href=http://www.nncbroadway.com>音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码

电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 <a

href=http://www.innhot.com/7daysinn>7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 <a

href=http://www.filt.cn>自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪

风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 <a href="http://www.wow-power-

leveling.net">wow power leveling wow powerleveling <a

href=http://"www.wow-power-leveling.net">Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft

Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling <a href=http://"www.wow-

power-leveling.net">World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape

power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树


eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

Posted by: runescape money at November 30, 2007 06:59 PM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn