The "insurgents" have now turned to attacking fellow Muslims in Iraq. It's more proof that the extremists have no idea what or why they're fighting, they are fighting because it's all they know. What good does it do to destroy the icons of the religion you claim to be so true to? The good news is that the insurgency is indeed turning on it's own and that can only mean that they can no longer claim it's about flushing out the infidels.
The bad news is that some people in the country somehow still thought of this as an opportunity to chant anti-American/Israeli slogans and burn the American flag. This was, in all likelihood a Sunni Muslim attack against a Shiite Muslim mosque. "When in Basra" I guess. It's easy to hate an entire country when you were born and programmed to be brainwashed, effortless to use logic and reason to think for yourself.
The ironic thing is that American (And other coalition) soldiers are there dying every single day to make sure they are afforded the right to chant "Death to America" anytime they want to. It's a twisted world we live in sometimes.
22 February 2006
21 February 2006
My dogma can beat up your dogma!
This was a response to another blog. The post was about the first homosexual Episcopalian bishop admitting to being an alocoholic. The post went from a peice about a drunk bishop into a propaganda peice for why the ultra-conservative catholics have the inside road on all that is right and just. Oh, and they're better than you too. Oh and God hates fags.
That article and the responses can be found by clicking the title of this post. Let me preface this by saying I truly do respect the person who wrote the article. She is steadfast in her opinion and she writes well. I really just wanted to post my thoughts here as well:
Hello, I'm brand new to this blog, and while I consider myself conservative I must also say that the Ultra-Conservative, Christian stance of self righteousness is an affront to actual morality.
Morality and religion cannot be assumed to be the same thing. There are plenty of people who use religon as a veil to mask immoral lives. If you rely on any ancient poorly translated text to live every small detail of your life, then you really shouldn't "cast the first stone" at anyone.
The Bible is a wonderful reference for a framework of morality, but let us not forget that the people who translated the works into the current version had their own agenda. The Catholics (as it was the only brand of Christianity for a long, long time) used the dogma of the church as a tool to keep the uneducated masses in line. It worked. It's documented that some words that were translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Old English and to modern English, etc. have had several meanings and the translators went with the "best fit". To this day, the Nicene Creed continues to be "re-translated" to fit the language of the day. While it may not change the meaning, it does change the words. What will those words mean to the human race in 1000 years? What if a new language is developed in that time and this one dies?
Morality at the end of the day is in how you treat another human being. Can you really look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about the way you treated your fellow man. Hate mongering and basking in the glow of another's failure is not moral behavior.
Oh, and has it ever occured to those who accept the explaination that the Catholic priests who abused children were all "gay priests", that the church has labeled them as such to promote a further atmosphere of discrimination against homosexuals. This also served a second purpose of redirecting blame away from themselves for covering those same "gay preists" butts for decades? Plus, anything to satisfy the tithing congregations. The bottom line is Catholics are no better (or worse) than any other group from which you take a large enough sample.
With that said, I love the fact that I live in a place where we have the right to debate these things ad nauseam. Thanks.
That article and the responses can be found by clicking the title of this post. Let me preface this by saying I truly do respect the person who wrote the article. She is steadfast in her opinion and she writes well. I really just wanted to post my thoughts here as well:
Hello, I'm brand new to this blog, and while I consider myself conservative I must also say that the Ultra-Conservative, Christian stance of self righteousness is an affront to actual morality.
Morality and religion cannot be assumed to be the same thing. There are plenty of people who use religon as a veil to mask immoral lives. If you rely on any ancient poorly translated text to live every small detail of your life, then you really shouldn't "cast the first stone" at anyone.
The Bible is a wonderful reference for a framework of morality, but let us not forget that the people who translated the works into the current version had their own agenda. The Catholics (as it was the only brand of Christianity for a long, long time) used the dogma of the church as a tool to keep the uneducated masses in line. It worked. It's documented that some words that were translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Old English and to modern English, etc. have had several meanings and the translators went with the "best fit". To this day, the Nicene Creed continues to be "re-translated" to fit the language of the day. While it may not change the meaning, it does change the words. What will those words mean to the human race in 1000 years? What if a new language is developed in that time and this one dies?
Morality at the end of the day is in how you treat another human being. Can you really look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about the way you treated your fellow man. Hate mongering and basking in the glow of another's failure is not moral behavior.
Oh, and has it ever occured to those who accept the explaination that the Catholic priests who abused children were all "gay priests", that the church has labeled them as such to promote a further atmosphere of discrimination against homosexuals. This also served a second purpose of redirecting blame away from themselves for covering those same "gay preists" butts for decades? Plus, anything to satisfy the tithing congregations. The bottom line is Catholics are no better (or worse) than any other group from which you take a large enough sample.
With that said, I love the fact that I live in a place where we have the right to debate these things ad nauseam. Thanks.
20 February 2006
Freedom of Speech? Not in Austria
This post is dedicated to Renegade Eye. Thanks for caring. Your my favorite (and pretty much only) reader.
So this story really pissed me off. Author states holocaust deaths were more from disease than extermination. He also says the Nazi's weren't as bad as advertised. He then writes books stating that Hitler probably had no idea what was happening. This pisses off people and makes this guy look like a heel. Austria (champion of democracy that they are) convicts him under a very vague law and seeks to jail him for up to ten years.
I have to ask, "Where's the crime"?
Is he a racist? Maybe, but the last time I looked, it wasn't a crime to speak your opinion. This leads me to what I'd like to fancy as logical questions...
1. Shouldn't the books published under his name be banned?
2. Should those publishers be tried and charged as well?
3. Should we start surveying our citizens and charging them when they don't bend to popular opinion?
4. Should we all get our firesuits ready for the Bradburyesque book roast that surely awaits?
I think the only immoral thing he may have done is tried to concede anything to the Austrian courts in the eleventh hour. He kind of redeemed himself with the quote, ""Of course it's a question of freedom of speech, the law is an ass." That sure made me giggle a little.
I don't agree with the guy, but he has as much right as anyone else to his opinions as long as he's not infringing on the rights of others. No matter what the Simon Wiesenthal Center says, freedom of speech should be protected even if it goes against your convictions.
So this story really pissed me off. Author states holocaust deaths were more from disease than extermination. He also says the Nazi's weren't as bad as advertised. He then writes books stating that Hitler probably had no idea what was happening. This pisses off people and makes this guy look like a heel. Austria (champion of democracy that they are) convicts him under a very vague law and seeks to jail him for up to ten years.
I have to ask, "Where's the crime"?
Is he a racist? Maybe, but the last time I looked, it wasn't a crime to speak your opinion. This leads me to what I'd like to fancy as logical questions...
1. Shouldn't the books published under his name be banned?
2. Should those publishers be tried and charged as well?
3. Should we start surveying our citizens and charging them when they don't bend to popular opinion?
4. Should we all get our firesuits ready for the Bradburyesque book roast that surely awaits?
I think the only immoral thing he may have done is tried to concede anything to the Austrian courts in the eleventh hour. He kind of redeemed himself with the quote, ""Of course it's a question of freedom of speech, the law is an ass." That sure made me giggle a little.
I don't agree with the guy, but he has as much right as anyone else to his opinions as long as he's not infringing on the rights of others. No matter what the Simon Wiesenthal Center says, freedom of speech should be protected even if it goes against your convictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)