As a Christian, I use the term "of God" to communicate the concept of "ordained" by or "part of His original design" for human society. In the Jewish tradition, Jews use the term "kosher" extended from their dietary laws. In Islam it is referred to as "Halal" or approved, also extended from dietary laws. The Muslims also have a word for the opposite "Haram" where as the Christian and Jewish traditions use simple negatives to express the same concept of not being "of God" and not being "kosher."
Many liberal Democrats actually believe THEY are doing God's work by advocating for homosexual legitimacy, by protecting illegal immigrants, by favoring Islam, by forcing national philanthropy on Americans, by eliminating our right to be armed for self defense,
(the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech violated 18 gun laws going
onto the campus' with guns, do you think 2 more laws would have made
any difference to them?) by forcing America's wealth into the hands of enemies and barely friendly states, by opposing war, by cutting the military budget, by advocating cultural diversity, by eliminating public Christian displays, by shutting down evangelism in public, by supporting radical feminism and the obfuscation of gender roles, debasing the level of civility, and defending pornography.
Examples follow:
Here is the way the original description of Prop 8 read:
• To provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Jerry Brown is advocating for same sex marriage using his position as Attorney General to describe a bill that has already passed in liberal California to sound more like a violation of human rights. Here is Brown’s new description:
• Changes California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
This video illustrates the difference between a peaceful religion and a militant religion perfectly. Both have the right to free speech, both have criticism of the other, but one responds with truth while the other responds with violence, yet in our current mindset of multi-culturalism they are equally associated with
hatred and
intolerance.
John LeoBowling With Our OwnRobert Putnam’s sobering new diversity research scares its author.
25 June 2007
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone,
is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably
so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity
have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social
capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create
and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly
negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration
debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new
communities and new ties.
Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only
reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups
themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower,
altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The
problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but
withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language,
people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker
down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”
In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more
diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This
proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los
Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural
South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San
Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they
trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the
Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.
Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says.
Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close
friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to
volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects
less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more,
but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to
huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing
footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”
Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result.
“Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by
diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down”
occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian
or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities
are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity
correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local
politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering,
fewer close friends, and less happiness.
Now I will grant that the Conservative
lobby has its ills and I will grant that some of the actions taken by
conservative led government has had some detrimental effect on our
society and foreign policy but, it is hard to accept liberals
are interested in culture when they are
deconstructionist. Liberals don't embrace culture as being something
handed down to them. They strive to create a culture (that is ideal and
not based in historical precedent) at the expense of the one that was
dominant from Jamestown until the 60's revolution. The effects of this
deconstructionism in an effort to create 'a better world' has made the
world worse in almost every instance in history. Justified by intent,
anyone can feel sanctimonious in committing the most heinous crimes
against humanity. It was under this very banner that Mao ordered the
murder of millions in China and Stalin in Russia. It is under this
banner that Islamists commit terrorist acts around the world by the
thousands each month. (to establish the house of peace and to purify
their culture) Most liberals do not go so far as even breaking a
single law toward this end but most, (especially those in the most
responsible positions in our society) do compromise their own values of
right and wrong to forward their agenda. Nancy Pelosi for example was quoted
by the Washington Post in explanation for not heeding American
suffering from gas prices because, "I'm trying to save the world
here." From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in
America to
that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads
threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare
tactics." Never underestimate the harm that cheap heroism can do to our society.
What the liberal mind misinterprets about Christianity and
conservatism is what they criticize in Christianity and conservatism
far more often than actual philosophies of Christianity and conservatism. Naturally, the liberal will immediately argue the same is true of conservatives and Christians about other cultures and liberalism. This video demonstrates the obvious ignorance in American history leaving a false negative impression of conservatism and a false positive impression of liberalism. I'm not talking here of the commoner but of the the liberal experts and historians highlighting the worst of Christian and American human rights violations and self determination or the conspicuous absence of reference to the foundation of our cultural principals and in some cases outright denial of faith in founding principals.
On March 28, 1811, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Duane from Monticello:
“The last hope of human liberty in this
world rests on us. We ought, for so dear a stake, to sacrifice every
attachment & every enmity.”
Our purpose as a nation in a world that does not value liberty so clearly as do we, is to encourage liberty everywhere and in every possible way we can. In that endeavor we cannot fail to send along with it, both our compassion to those suffering in lack of essentials and a call to individually self govern their behavior to benefit the whole of society. The more morality we subject ourselves to the less a government has to do it for/to us. But our first priority has to be instilling these values in our own people. With liberty as its highest goal, our society is most vulnerable to abuses of that very all important value by members of its own population. Since our leaders are reliant on public opinion in order to attain and hold the positions of policy makers, on the relatively minute volition of speech alone our nation can be reduced from the lone superpower and the desired destination of the vast majority of immigrants to literal non-existence and even worse, into despotism.
"Society is best described as a
grouping of
individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive
culture and
institutions.
We are a society of freedom, a society of life, and a society which
includes family, friends, and even faith. By faith, I mean that we were
founded on the principles of a natural God, a Creator, and it was
believed that a free society could exist only with the moral code of
natural law (God's Law)."
Hat tip to The New Conservative. I am therefor begging Americans to use your judgment to determine what is right, good, beneficial or of God.
Comments
Were we able to ignore the Middle East, I would be for measured influence, but we can't because that culture is bent on ruling the world with a 7th century system of government and 21st century weapons.
How is "forcing national philanthropy" in any way against God? When did God command "Thou shalt not do charitable works"?
Since when is the second amendment one of God's commandments?
Since when did Jesus preach war and NOT turning the other cheek? How is it against God to follow Jesus' teachings?
Since when is diversity anti-God?
Debasing the level of civility? Is this a real complaint or are you making it up?
What is that Jerry Brown example even saying? I can't tell if he's a conservative or a liberal or an idiot.
Then there's your deliberate misuse of this Putnam guy's research, which he excplicitly feared would happen: "He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties."
This is no different from what I have been saying about immigrants and diversity from the start. If you go back and read my arguments, you will see that I am vindicated by Harvard studies. And yet, the "problem" with diversity that he outlines isn't even the problem that you cite as your justification for monoculture.
"The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”"
Versus your citation of "identity politics" and non-WASP identities as somehow destructive to America in the long run.
It's also ludicrous to assert that there was a homogenous American culture at any point in its history. If this were true, then there would not have been 13 founding states, each maintaining individual state rights. America would have become a unitary state and not a federation. And what continuous culture "from the revolution to the 60's" could you be referring to? Maine fishing communities? Southern slave plantation communities? Old West outlaws n' Injuns communities? Texans? Mormons? Manhattan Dutch? Cajuns? Progressives from the 60's onwards aren't seeking to create some utopian culture any more than the Founding Fathers or Joseph Smith or the Puritans.
Modern thinkers can recognize that, in the past, there has been a general American identity, but there have also been dozens of diverse and uniquely American cultures. It's not a reinterpretation of history, so don't go accusing me of "revisionism"; it is self-evident that American history and geography span an enormous range of cultures, coexisting in the same American space and time. Proud Texans, proud Mormons, proud New England WASPs who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower - America has NEVER been homogenous.
Once you understand that, then it becomes very easy to apply your contemporary anti-immigrant, anti-diversity politics to the past and see how you have already been proven wrong. Irish immigrants during the potato famine; Italian immigrants; German immigrants to the West, etc etc etc. Some of them integrated, and some of them maintain their cultures today; some of them partially integrated, and you can see them as uniquely American sub-cultures. In the short term, there were race riots, anti-Irish violence, discrimination, and alienation. But we've come a long way since 1848, and hopefully we've become a little more tolerant of our petty differences.
Connecting this to Mao and Stalin by a weak, imaginary connection [Liberals intend to make things better... HEY! MAO AND STALIN HAD INTENTIONS TOO!] is a staple of propagandists and I expect better from you. Associating your opponents with generally-detested mass-murderers is not an argument, it's an excuse not to be intelligent or to engage your opponent's arguments.
This reminds me of another lovely debate about a President's alleged religious beliefs: remember when everyone was shouting about how JFK's catholicism meant the US would take marching orders from the Pope? Hm, I wonder how that worked out.
What the hell does THIS even mean? Heterosexuals are immune to AIDS? Second-hand smoke is perfectly healthy? POISON is not POISONOUS? Are you seriously calling AIDS, POISON and TOXIC SMOKE myths and then presenting your OWN scare tactic as undeniable truth?
The bible says 'pray without ceasing' but it doesn't say prayer is 'giving God orders' or deciding that God's word need only be followed if it suits your particular prejudices. We all come from the same rib. Artificial differentiations fly in the face of Christian scripture. As I understand it the gift of free will was given so that one might deliberately choose to align him or herself with God's will, not bend God's will to suit the vanities and prejudices of the individual.
Yep, morality's a tricky thing. Male circumcision has long been either desirable or unquestioned; female circumcision is called mutilation. Assuming the bible is a blueprint for morality, it's odd to see political factions slugging it out over religious domination. I believe Romans Ch.12:14 to the end of the chapter is fairly specific; leave the sorting out to God. No human is equipped to replace divine judgment.
To the non-Left, non-Right, non-Christian it's difficult to see much authentic testimony that would compel a non-believer to become one.
"Our purpose as a nation in a world that does not value liberty so clearly as do we ..." Sorry, but I think your assumption is way off. Many countries value liberty as much as or more than you do. To some of us, the constraints of the litigious society you've created are anathema to liberty, as are the colour and drug use issues and crime levels. America is not the bastion of all that is good and the rest of us are just wrong or not quite as bright. I'm curious to know, if you don't mind me asking, how many countries have you visited and how many have you lived in for any appreciable amount of time? I'm just trying to get a handle on how you've arrived at your certainty about the world-that-is-not-America.
That's a pretty tall order. When you learn how to live by a creed of good (pick one) without failure or exception, I'll take your theology into consideration. No man other than Christ is perfect.
As spoken in the first video, what people judge about Christianity is more often what they misinterpret from the Bible than what the Bible actually says. We are called hypocrites by the worst hypocrites and somehow the label sticks. See my profile.
Three things. First, the church is made up mostly of people coming out of the secular lifestyle. second, you are correct about the laxist attitude the church has taken toward divorce, but the divorce rate of those raised in the church is much lower than their secularist counterparts. thrid, there are justifiable reasons to be divorced even within Christianity (life threatened-abuse of children-extra marital sexual relations, etc.,) Also,
Capital punishment is not the same as murder, so if you are referring to Christians' support of the death penalty, you are opening a can of worms that has been dealt with on an earlier article. You should take that comment over there.
Are you suggesting that the authoritative voices of Christianity are racist? or that I've been racist? or any of the above have been anti-other religion? Do we speak against other religions, of course, but that doesn't mean I want their rights taken away in our free society. Neither do I want them inciting to maim and murder.
Why is it that you can call on other Christians to follow God more closely but they cannot tell you the same thing? If it is impossible to obey every law of the Bible [I find that extremely unlikely], then leave them to their imperfections - stop railing against homosexual rights and pacifism.
As a non-Christian, who doesn't know many Christians and yet often talks about Jesus, I can tell you that most non-Christians respect the man, but not the archaic Biblical laws and hypocrisy of those who claim to follow him. My favourite example of evangelical hypocrisy is that homosexuality is wrong according to passage X of the Old Testament, and yet haircuts and seafood, which are verboten according to passages Y, Z and W, are OK. If it's supposed to be the word of God, you can't pick and choose what you enforce. Jesus was way cool though, everybody loved Jesus. He could turn water into wine, and if he had wanted to, he could have turned wheat into marijuana, or sugar into cocaine, or vitamin pills into amphetamines.
"the church is made up mostly of people coming out of the secular lifestyle."
Are you quite sure that most Christians are not born and raised Christian?
"but the divorce rate of those raised in the church is much lower than their secularist counterparts."
Does this excuse Christians who get divorces? If not, then why is it even relevant?
"Also, Capital punishment is not the same as murder, so if you are referring to Christians' support of the death penalty, you are opening a can of worms that has been dealt with on an earlier article."
I'm pretty sure this refers to the Iraq War [and really every War].
"or any of the above have been anti-other religion? ... but that doesn't mean I want their rights taken away in our free society."
But you HAVE stated, repeatedly, that the only question regarding the "problem with Muslims" is whether we should CONVERT them all or DEPORT them all.
"Do we need to toss the Muslims out of the country whether born here or not, whether a fresh convert or an import?" - First, Know your Enemy
"No, we want knowledgeable, committed to peace reformers or we want them to convert from Islam. Islam requires that its followers do not question Islam but just follow its edicts." - First, Know your Enemy
Either way, you are defying their rights to freedom of religion and in many cases, revoking their citizenship. You also show up the hypocrisy that non-Christians find so unappealing; Muslims obey their edicts without question and they are bad or doing so, but Christians are not bad for doing the same thing? Keeping in mind that both parties believe their edict is the word of God, unalterable and divine truth.
"That's true, but that is what secularists and leftist groups do far more than Christian groups. Again; see my profile."
Non-Christian groups do not operate on the premise that they are operating under God's will, so how can they be bending it?
"They are hardly comparable. Male circumcision does not attempt to interfere with the enjoyment of sex as does female circumcision."
Yes it does. One of the driving reasons that it became so popular in the West was that it was supposed to reduce masturbation. How would it achieve this, I wonder? And then there's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_circumcision#Sexual_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_circumcision#Medical_aspects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_circumcision#HIV_and_other_sexually_transmitted_diseases
Just because it is less dangerous or less damaging than female circumcision does not make it morally or ethically acceptable. I could cut off your hand, but if I only cut off the tip of your pinky instead, is that ok?
"Good intentions that end in harmful results are not ok with God."
But you just said that God only judges the heart [intentions] and Man judges behaviour [actions and results].
"Why? Think about what I've said, read my profile. Study a little bit on what it is the Christian is trying to follow rather than what the world assumes the Christian is trying to follow. You've heard just enough of the Bible to be inoculated against it."
He just said that "authentic testimony" i.e. of Christians experiencing the divine, is not enough to convert a non-believer. Have you ever MET a non-believer? Most people believe in whatever they do for a reason, they aren't going to be swayed by some loony who says they met God on acid.
"Examples please."
Ireland
United Kingdom
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Belgium
Poland
Italy
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Greece
Israel
South Africa
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India
Japan
Taiwan
Brazil
Argentina
Mexico
Ghana
There are more countries classified as "free" by other people, but I didn't consider them for this brief list because I wanted to single out countries with strong histories of embracing liberty or vast modern freedoms. The Netherlands, for example, is perhaps more free than America, but I'm sure you would dismiss it as "permissive," as though liberty is anything but.
He's not accusing Christians of creating a litigious society at all. How do you get that out of this?
"To some of us [other countries that like liberty], the constraints of the litigious society you've created are anathema to liberty, as are the colour and drug use issues and crime levels."
Your "soft racism" "multiculturalism is racism" "multiculturalism is fascism" shtick is total cockamamie bulldoink, and I have proven it elsewhere on this very blog. Racism is the fault of people saying "other races are A-OK"? Really? I mean, even the surface logic of your argument is flawed.
Are you an apologist for colonial exploitation and imperialism now?
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/oecd1.htm
"Under their rule, from 1757 to 1857, Indian per capita income fell, but British gains were substantial."
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/publications/worldeconomy/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
Note that India's GDP stayed in stagnant growth while Britain's exploded.
No country is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, no country is the sole bastion of ethics and morality, not America, not Britain, not Rome before them.
As someone who has lived his entire life in another country and received constant American media, I can tell you plainly that you are being paranoid and elitist. I know that my country values freedom as much as or [in some cases] more than Americans. And I know why the world is turning against America - not because WE ARE ALL EVIL and YOU MUST STAND UP TO OUR CORRUPTION, but because the US government has, for twenty years and more severely in recent years, been a lumbering juggernaut of cold war imperialism, an anachronism that continues to blare as though it were fighting demons and you're either with us or agin' us. It's not popular to hate Americans [except the intolerant, hateful, zealous fatty stereotype], it's popular to hate the American government and its unilateral actions and its insensitive stumbling across the globe. You don't do America's image any good when you rail against liberties that everyone else has accepted, and then assert yourself as the one true home of freedom.
As for your immigration claim, a quick wikisearch shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#Immigration_rate
"According to Canada's Immigration Program (October 2004) Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world"
'Evening Bob, Chumblor. Interesting reading, thanks. JB, you've made a few assumptions that are a bit wild. Like this one: "You've heard just enough of the Bible to be inoculated against it." How do you know? In the interests of fairness I'll answer your questions, although they are secondary to the ideas I raised. I grew up in the church; youth group on Friday and Saturday, Sunday School, and later, two services on Sunday; 15 years all up, although some of that was obviously as a little kid. I've read the bible several times cover-to-cover and referred to it thousands of times when looking for a reference point. Also, I'm not inoculated against it; it’s a worthy document brimming with good advice and wise thoughts. If I'm inoculated against anything it's the factions of the Left and Right who try to manipulate religion for their own ugly and perverted means.
To use an analogy; dynamite is a highly valuable tool when used for a good purpose, like rescuing someone from a cave-in. In the hands of an idiot it's a weapon. Philosophically, I think the bible and other religious documents are like that; the bible is not the problem, it's some of the users who are highly questionable.
On the divorce thing I agree that some Christians, as you noted, divorce in direct contravention to the bible. I'm pretty sure God said He wouldn't be mocked. And there's the point; you (Christians and others, generally, not you personally) don't get to pick and choose the bits you like. You accept all of it or not, or bend over and take three hypocrite whacks. Christians (for the purpose of this discussion) want to go into the world and preach the gospel of Christ, not based on core principles but on personal prejudices. There are certainly many fine Christians but they aren't, I think, the ones who attach a political meaning to the word and will of God. That seems blasphemous to me.
Killing in the name of God is a perversion. I hadn't particularly thought of capital punishment but I'd just say that your writing a blog entry about it hardly deals with it; capital punishment is far from dealt with. Unlike many on the Left, I think there is a place and time for it and I've always been a qualified supporter of it. Then again, I'm not from the Left so it would be odd if I did agree with them on a large variety of subjects. Same goes for the Right. And I generally never take blogs too seriously because so much of the 'research' that is bandied about would make a first-semester college student die laughing.
Blog research: "The looking up of links to sites that agree with your particular opinion, and then citing them to shore up generally shaky reasoning while saying "See? Told you so!" Have a laugh, Bob. That definition can be applied to any side of politics and blogitics. It can be mildly entertaining but research it isn't, and compelling it's not.
Now, onto the circumcision thing. Chumblor made a good catch there. It's all mutilation, regardless of the intent or purpose, just as the historical role of the eunuch and cantor had (some) good intent but was still mutilation, and just as sex-change operations have good intent but are still mutilation. The purpose doesn't always define the result, and the deliberate cutting of unable-to-consent children's genitals is abusive by nature. No boy ever died of an attached foreskin.
Similarly, I vaguely recall about a decade ago reading somewhere that some genuinely bone-headed women were having their little toes amputated so that they could fit into the latest shoes. It beggars belief, but there we are. However, as my earlier contribution was directed towards the issue of morality (and not any religion, per se) one can only wonder at some of the incredibly immoral choices people subscribe to. The worldwide cosmetics industry is valued at nearly $300 billion annually (sales). A small fraction of that amount is genuinely-required cosmetics for those with disfigurements; all else is vanity. Imagine pumping that figure into food, shelter, and education. Okay, we'd have to look at some ugly mugs, a sort of visual pollution. :-) but (most) men manage to struggle through life without war paint. The morality of cosmetics bears examination.
In reading your reply it was odd but sort of unsurprising that you seem to think I'm attacking and so must you in return. This is a strange feature I've notice in those on the Right. Ther Reds aren't under the bed and the Muslims aren't at the back door. To disagree with the Right is neither a sin nor bad judgment. Here in Vox there was Boofhead or Bonehead or Blockhead who threatened to kill a woman simply because she dared disagree with him. What a hero. There's Humbled Infidel who blocks people who dare to so much as speak to people she doesn't like. Numbskull behaviour and befitting a nasty little child, but hardly a testament to Christianity or a lesson worthy of following. Good ole Ben, that bastion of 'Muslim bad' philosophy who was all for the immediate nuking of Pakistan but went strangely quiet when I asked him repeatedly how he could justify the obliteration of 4 million Pakistani Christians. By their fruits shall ye know them, indeed. Christian love and tolerance in action. I have a sneaking suspicion God and Jesus would be mortified at such disgusting behaviour, and I see no moral or spiritual superiority in any of it. It's just mean, small, vindictive and profoundly stupid, and not even close to anything scriptural I've ever read. There are your hypocrites, defined. While I can't say I've ever read your blog before (I came here by accident, having clicked on this link rather than the 'next page' one under it) you seem to be of a different ilk to them. Feel free to block me and everyone who links or speaks to me if you like, though. I think that proves some high moral point, although I completely miss what it may be. :-) Okay, jokes aside.
Chumblor has listed some examples of of liberty-loving countries, although a few of his choices surprised me. Personally, I think Australia is the most advanced democracy there is; it's just relatively small, but we have most of the good stuff and I think less of the bad. How we treat the indigenous people is disgusting and on that front I've long said we should be sanctioned by all our trading partners until we correct what is wrong. We certainly don't have the animosity between Left and Right that you guys do, which is an enormous relief. We wouldn't tolerate that, which is why we won't stoop that low.
On the travel thing, it's again only fair that I answer your inquiry; you were good enough to answer mine.
31 countries so far. I've lived in 4 countries (other than Oz) for extended periods ranging from 5 years to 1.5 years in each. Another 3 of those I don't count as having 'lived in' because it was under war conditions and I think that qualifies them as 'surviving' rather than living in. That would also add nearly 4 years to the total. On American soil, I stayed in Chicago for 14 weeks; fine city, that, but I can't recall a second of feeling warm. I've lived and worked in Communist, Muslim, Christian and Buddhist countries and my experience is that there are some real scum in all of them and some wonderful people in all of them. I can honestly say some of my best friends are Muslims, because they are. Really decent people.
Anyway, I've been typing alll day before writing this and my finger hurt, so I'll be off for now. Fortress religion and politics is so exclusionary. When I saw your initial list at the top of this topic it just seemed inconceivable how it can be reconciled with anything approaching love and tolerance.
Over to you, and cheers Chumblor for your insights and sometimes-shaky liberty list.
Worthy of consideration or worthy of dedicating your life to applying all of its teaching?
That's it? These are your examples of hypocrites? Blockhead stepped over the line by making threats he clearly has no ability to carry out. But as for the rest, these people are inundated with hateful spite driven commentary due entirely to their support of George Bush. Apparently you aren't aware of the nutsofacto extreme leftwing blogosphere. And you assume that all these are Christian. Some are some are not. In fact, at least one you mentioned isn't even on the right, he is Libertarian which is closer to the right than the left, but that is due entirely to the lefts aligning with the reds. I've made it my business to engage the left to try to get them to look past their ideology and see the consequences of their policies. This means I spend hours going over the issues in depth. I can hardly blame my compatriots for keeping their comments clean and supportive of their targeted audience. (Generally troops in the field.) Granted, when the left is engaged the way I do, they tend to keep it pretty respectful and clean, but clearly, not everybody can devote the time I do to answer these folks and their frustration comes up just like the left's do. You are now applying that old double standard. Who's blogs are meaner, nastier, and intolerant? The lefties or the righties? What's more is that the right is outnumbered on the blogs by a factor of (I'm guessing) six or more. Most of the services are run by lefties. The reason I quit Google's blogspot was because of their bias against Christianity. I was kicked off of Yahoo's Answers for being hate filled! and that's why I have the profile I keep referring you to here at VOX.
When you consider that the UN is unable to do anything about the genocide in Darfur, Chad, Somalia, and soon to be Kenya, I think inviting such a curse on your own nation is pretty close to traitorous. Why not work within your government to fix the problem rather than inviting the characteristically uneven handed U.N's approach?
In all honesty I don't know if a majority or minority really manipulate faith. Christianity in Australia is so completely differently practiced and perceived when measured against the American way. It's much quieter, less confrontational, and much less politicised but then I don't think we have the barbarians at the gate to the same depth you appear to. As far as I know, religious instruction in school is either faith-specific (such as a Catholic school in which the parents make a deliberate choice) or is an opt-in, opt-out system in government schools. Australia tends to have some remnants of Victorian England's slowness to change and conservatism, although there is a quiet trend towards opening up religious instruction as a facet of multi-culturalism. The whole thing barely rates a murmur here, and I don't think it's because we're apathetic; it's just not a big deal.
I do understand the point you make regarding circumcision; my point is that both are mutilation and not the degree to which one supercedes the other in barbarism.
In terms of consequences, I believe there are consequences in everything. What's lacking in many cases is the willingness to take responsibility for where an action leads, especially if any unintended consequences arise. Complex problems can't be solved with simple slogans, and wars have unintended victims. We lose our humanity when we brush aside the deaths of innocents as collateral damage, no matter what country or faith they are in. It's not a crime or mistake to be born into a country that suffers repression.
It's still odd to me that you think I'm challenging you. I have little belief that I'll change your mind, nor will you change mine, most likely; this is simply a discussion on a small blog service and not a confrontation, as far as I'm concerned. I think we'll have to disagree on a few things, such as the meaning of research, but it's hardly going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Life's too short for inconsequential blog fights.
The morality of cosmetics and how people spend doesn't really concern me; the issue of consequences (spend on this rather than that) was the point I was attempting to make. I prefer truth in packaging but what the vast unknown do is none of my business and so I repect their right to do what they like. War paint doesn't directly harm others. Similarly, if someone were to disagree with something I think is okay I'd probably just let them think it, depending on the issue and whether that person was relevant to me. By and large, I really couldn't care less what random strangers think of my choices for myself.
Okay, I should somewhat modify my Reds and Muslims statement; everyone has a vested interest in something and all interests are in play. Whether those interests and actions are necessary, destructive, or otherwise negative depends on who you are and where you stand. No doubt the Reds and Muslims (and others) are suspicious of outsiders to their beliefs, too, and can cite articulate reasons for believing that to be so. There is factionalism in just about every school of thought or belief system and so it appears the general 'we' can't even find agreement amongst ourselves.
I've always found it passing strange when reading the whole Left and Right thing, each side exaggerating the ills of the other and minimising their own ills. A case in point might be the 'No child left behind' policy. As an outsider reading up on it via email and blog posts from American friends, it looks to me (possibly wrongly) that a Right-wing government has been infiltrated on this issue by a Left-wing mentality. Both appear wrong, but for different reasons. In fairness, one can hardly blame the Right simply because they are in power. I just don't think big issues are that black and white.
I tend to keep away from extreme bloggers; I find them boring, repetitive, one-trick ponies and with what (very) limited blog time I have I like to read and respond to something that has a chance of being interesting and insightful. It mightn't change my mind but it will certainly exercise some brain cells. The thing I think is funny and genuinely does make me chuckle is being blocked because I spoke to a Leftie. Dear, oh dear. It seems to me that even the most minor questioning of some on the Right automatically leads to an assumption that I'm on the Left. Both sides do that. Until the Left gets a broadside and begins re-evaluating where they think I stand. I find a lot that is useful in both camps and a lot that is rubbish (to me). Having a closed mind isn't particularly smart or life-affirming to me.
I recall a post about, I think, Amendment 28 (the 'Kill all the Muslims' Amendment). I recall disagreeing with both sides, but the Left were much more gracious about it. Having a different opinion doesn't make me an enemy. I try to keep it respectful if possible, although as you know, some things are just so ludicrous they need to be called on, like Ben's nuclear murder of millions of Christians. He just hadn't thought it through, and that's a consequence of letting hatred blind rational thought. My proposed Amendment was regarding 'No soldier left behind', given them the right protection in battle and really taking care of them when they come home. Both ideas have merit but if there's a choice between salvaging our own wounded and killing a few more of the other guys, I think the best first choice is looking after our own. Abandoning men of honour is dishonourable, in my opinion.
My fingers hurt. :-)
Okay, Australia liberated East Timor from the Indonesians (a process still happening - only a week or so ago Indonesia finally admitted to atrocities in Timor) and has significantly helped not only in building democracy but in restoring and building critical infrastructure. We're both little; it's unsuprising the world doesn't hear about things like this.
In terms of the U.N. I hear you loud and clear; that's why I suggested our trading partners should smack us around. No one really takes the U.N. seriously except for catering companies and fine wine merchants.
31 countries sounds more impressive than it is. If you live in Europe for a while and are used to the tyranny of distance like Australia has, travelling around is a day trip. You can drive across England in 10 hours; it takes me 13 hours to drive to the next capital city over here.
I think my parting of the ways with the religious Right is regarding killing. There's a commandment about that one and it doesn't prevaricate, provide exclusions, or grant conceptual extensions. It just says "don't". I tend to think God knew what He was talking about when He made that rule, and so I think re-interpreting it is blasphemy and extraordinarily arrogant. Only owning the easy commandments doesn't take any particular faith in the Divine purpose; it's the really tough ones to follow that, I think, define the true believer. And so, even though I'm of another faith, I'm neither anti-Christianity nor anti-Left or -Right. I like seeing anyone of any faith be true to the major concepts.
And for now I'd better go pick up my wife or no faith willl save me. :-) She's little but she's tough.
"Yes it does. One of the driving reasons that it became so popular in the West was that it was supposed to reduce masturbation. How would it achieve this, I wonder?"
Less bad does not equal good. It is still mutilation carried out without consent, previously done SPECIFICALLY in order to reduce pleasure and currently done because it is a cultural tradition now, and NOT doing it is feared to result in ridicule by peers... like female circumcision in other countries. This is not some "moral equivalence" that you cannot wrap your head around - it is the reality of ethics. Less wrong, is not right. "Oh, there are WORSE abuses out there" does not excuse you for beating a man to death.
"Which of these has set out in this or the last century to free another people from a despot?"
WWII
Britain
France
Poland
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
South Africa
Mexico
Brazil
India
and more who were not free themselves at that time
KOREA
Belgium
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Britain
France
South Africa
Greece
Netherlands
VIETNAM
New Zealand
Australia
GULF I
Britain
Canada
New Zealand
Australia
Argentina
France
Germany
Poland
Norway
Slovakia
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
BOSNIA
Canada
Britain
New Zealand
Australia
France
Germany
Italy
etc
AFGHANISTAN
Britain
Canada
Netherlands
Germany
Australia
Italy
Spain
Norway
Sweden
Turkey - Whooops!
"Which one of these countries has rebuilt a nation they've defeated and set the indigenous people up to run their own government while they backed out of controlling interest?"
This is hardly a fair criterion or LOVING LIBERTY THE MOST, given that the only countries properly reconstructed by the invading liberators are Japan and Germany, and America had to do it because everyone else was flat broke from... World War II. Also given that America has not successfully done so since then, and back then it was done out of self-interest [a rebuilt Germany as a buffer against Russia, and rebuilt Japan because Japan was a major trade partner], it seems this point is entirely moot.