Islamophobia
UN to hold seminar on ‘Islamophobia’
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will open a seminar on “Islamophobia” at UN headquarters on December 7.
The seminar entitled ‘Confronting Islamophobia: education for tolerance and understanding’ will be the second in a series entitled ‘Unlearning Intolerance,’ organised by the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI).
According to an announcement, the series aims to examine different manifestations of intolerance and explores ways to promote respect and understanding among peoples and to discuss how intolerance, wherever it exists and for whatever reason, can be “unlearned” through education, inclusion and example.
My thoughts on what would help “Islamophobia” would be far more Islamic leaders coming out and loudly denouncing the acts of the radical, fundamentals who involve themselves in acts of terror. I have heard a few come forward – - I think there needs to be more. And more often.
To educate the world public – they first need to show that Islam is not all about terror and that the Islamic terrorists do not represent mainstream Islam, as a whole – that it is just a faction of it . . a radical faction. That statement needs to be heard, seen and felt strongly and often by the general public before the idea of ‘tolerance and understanding’ will be propogated through the masses.
I’m not saying it’s not been done – - I just don’t think it’s been done enough.
November 24, 2004 - 09:18 PM on November 24th, 2004
i’m sure it didn’t take this long for the Pentagon to wrap their pin-heads around this sad realilty…
Terror war seen hurting U.S. in Muslim world
Radicals gain new stature, Pentagon advisory panel says.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have created a shared anti-American cause among otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and raised the stature of the radicals in the eyes of ordinary Muslims, a Pentagon advisory panel says.
reputation
November 24, 2004 - 10:08 PM on November 24th, 2004
I thought “…major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed….”
November 24, 2004 - 11:10 PM on November 24th, 2004
Kofi Annan is a totally corrupt, he works for Red Chinese and worked for saddam, oh i forgot so did our government.:roll:
November 24, 2004 - 11:45 PM on November 24th, 2004
Sure, before Iraq the Islamic world showered us with affection?
During WWII, any ossifer who suggested we stop fighting because we might make the enemy mad would have been up for a section 8 before dinner.
And Fred, what was that movie about 7 degrees of separation or something? You drive through the intersection when the light is green, you stop when the light is red. Idiots who can not understand different conditions should neither drive nor rule.
November 25, 2004 - 07:17 AM on November 25th, 2004
This is the stance against terrorism and put on by the UN no less:roll: No thanks!
November 25, 2004 - 09:25 AM on November 25th, 2004
i wonder if the American soldier was considered a terrorist to the Indian Nations who were living very well here, thank you very much, before we came along to ‘found’ a ‘new’ nation.
Ameriphobia.
at least we honored the treaties & and gave fair recompense. o, wait.
thanksgiving isn’t a big holiday in the Crow Nation a few miles from here.
November 25, 2004 - 10:10 AM on November 25th, 2004
We won, they lost. We were not the first people in America to displace another people, since that was the standard behavior back then. Look at the indigenees of other American nations and ask if any of our tribes would change places.
Shiloh, no one forces you to partake of the benefits of our society. If you are ashamed of what European settlers did here, go back where you came from. I can supply a list of those you can take with you if you wish.
November 25, 2004 - 10:12 AM on November 25th, 2004
7 – yes, please, the list will be helpful.
November 25, 2004 - 10:18 AM on November 25th, 2004
Happy Thanksgiving. Let’s thank God that we live in a country where we can debate our ideals, right wing warmongers and left wing nazi’s, and views of where the good o’le US of A needs to be headed.
November 25, 2004 - 10:22 AM on November 25th, 2004
wait a sec walter, with that thinking, everything can be justified by saying, well everyone stole countries, so it’s all good. is there no objective morality?
i’m ok your ok, killing people for their land is okay?
November 25, 2004 - 10:24 AM on November 25th, 2004
TAC – good morning -if you continue to think the nazis ere mleft wing i will have to out you in the category of the insane. (you’re almost there, anyway you facist baby killer)
happy thanksgiving to you & yours.
November 25, 2004 - 10:24 AM on November 25th, 2004
Hey shiloh, I just put in for some job, govt. , in Montana. Scary isn’t it. Hell, we could be neighbors.:grin:
November 25, 2004 - 10:27 AM on November 25th, 2004
Yes, I am by dg’s definition, a pro-life warmonger. Oh, yeah, being a soldier (NG) would place me in the baby killer zone, but, being pro-life balances it out so I am simply a “warmonger”… Got Turkey?
November 25, 2004 - 10:29 AM on November 25th, 2004
Lax immigration policies and totally different mindsets. Interesting that we’re still strugling these on this day centuries later.
November 25, 2004 - 10:34 AM on November 25th, 2004
Shiloh,
when Moses led his people out of slavery and into the promised land, there were people there (Palestine).
Guess what the Old Testament says:
Exodus 33
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ 2 I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 3 Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey.
Same ol’ shit.
November 25, 2004 - 10:36 AM on November 25th, 2004
I hate to start this, but I must defend my definition. Nazis weren’t Republicans, or “right wing”, or “patriots” or “militias”. They were Socialist monsters.
November 25, 2004 - 10:37 AM on November 25th, 2004
Their religion is being hijacked by a fanatical few, and the rest of the world is hearing crickets chirping. The bad part is that the rest of the world take that general silence as a quiet endorsement by the majority.
November 25, 2004 - 10:42 AM on November 25th, 2004
Nazism is clearly left-wing. Nazism has more in common with our modern left-wing. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists – particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.
November 25, 2004 - 10:53 AM on November 25th, 2004
6 – let me get this straight, you are COMPLAINING? about america? you are trying to go back 500 years and talk about the native americans? are you freaking OUT OF YOUR MIND? move to france…..you suck!
November 25, 2004 - 10:54 AM on November 25th, 2004
15: Good point, dg. And if you knew the historical importance of that area and what the people already there were engaged in at the time, you’d understand why they (the Israelites) were told to kill every man, woman and child there, make no treaty, do not take them as wives.
November 25, 2004 - 10:56 AM on November 25th, 2004
i think you may be confusing the terms – ‘national socialism’ and ’socialist’. they are not necessarily synonomous.
dg – God said ‘Israel, do this and that’.
when we took over Native American lands, i believe God ‘allowed’ it. unless you’re saying the Union soldiers were also the ‘chosen people’.
November 25, 2004 - 10:59 AM on November 25th, 2004
glad to see you’re having a Thanksgiving kind of day.
i am simply not ignoring history for the sake of saying, ‘we’re great!’
i may suck, but i don’t ignore the other side of history, darlin.
bonjour, ’savah?
November 25, 2004 - 11:05 AM on November 25th, 2004
see 18, In which part do the mentioned “values” resemble?
November 25, 2004 - 11:07 AM on November 25th, 2004
I’m very thankful for my country and what it represents. USA #1. I am sick of your sour grapes shit.
See you all later. I’m going to go spend time with my family and watch some football.
November 25, 2004 - 11:08 AM on November 25th, 2004
Awwww CRAP! I don’t want to debate today. I hope yall have a great holiday. Enjoy “family” and look to the positive side of things,,,, if just for today. Later, TAC aka Warmonger
November 25, 2004 - 11:14 AM on November 25th, 2004
I’m sorry
Let me be clear. I do not believe God “told” anybody to slaughter occupants of land he had already “promised” Abraham — or kill the first born in Egypt or King David’s first born son as pinishment.
“Thy shall not kill”?
“I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.”
My point is, religion is a tool to justify expansion and conquest, like “Manifest Destiny“.
November 25, 2004 - 11:26 AM on November 25th, 2004
thanks for the manifest destiny link, dg. intersting.
November 25, 2004 - 11:31 AM on November 25th, 2004
more ’sour grapes’ in honor of sweet K who thinks i suck.
In my next life, I want to be Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.
Yes, I want to get almost the entire Republican side of the House of Representatives to bend its ethics rules just for me. I want to be able to twist the arms of House Republicans to repeal a rule that automatically requires party leaders to step down if they are indicted on a felony charge – something a Texas prosecutor is considering doing to DeLay because of corruption allegations.
But most of all, I want to have the gall to sully American democracy at a time when young American soldiers are fighting in Iraq so we can enjoy a law-based society here and, maybe, extend it to others. Yes, I want to be Tom DeLay. I want to wear a little American flag on my lapel in solidarity with the troops, while I besmirch every value they are dying for.
November 25, 2004 - 11:33 AM on November 25th, 2004
link to above
i suck
November 25, 2004 - 11:34 AM on November 25th, 2004
Actually, properly rendered, it’s You shall not murder. Big difference.
November 25, 2004 - 11:35 AM on November 25th, 2004
It is rather appropriate to discuss the horrible treatment of Native Americans by the US government — less than 100 years ago, let alone 500.
Think about this:
The Pilgrims (Puritans) fled England for religious freedom. When they came to Plymouth Rock (no, not the combat operation in Iraq, but the one in Mass.) the natives welcomed them, helped them farm and grow crops and introduced them to a feast where they all gave thanks.
When the Pilgrims could not convert the “heathens” to Christianity, they commenced slaughtering them.
That continued with that process all they way up until around 1910, when the few “savages” that remained were easily rounded up and put on reservations, in the middle of nowhere — out of the way of progress.
God bless America?
You’d better pray real fuckin’ hard!
November 25, 2004 - 11:39 AM on November 25th, 2004
It is rather appropriate to discuss the horrible treatment of Native Americans by the US government — less than 100 years ago, let alone 500.
Think about this:
The Pilgrims (Puritans) fled England for religious freedom. When they came to Plymouth Rock (no, not the combat operation in Iraq, but the one in Mass.) the natives welcomed them, helped them farm and grow crops and introduced them to a feast where they all gave thanks.
When the Pilgrims could not convert the “heathens” to Christianity, they commenced slaughtering them.
That continued with that process all they way up until around 1910, when the few “savages” that remained were easily rounded up and put on reservations, in the middle of nowhere — out of the way of progress.
God bless America?
You’d better pray real friggin’ hard!
November 25, 2004 - 11:56 AM on November 25th, 2004
dg you suck – move to France!
November 25, 2004 - 11:58 AM on November 25th, 2004
actually – you don’t suck – but, evidently there’s a more appropriate time to discuss this issue. today isn’t the time ’cause there’s football and turkey. that trumps history any ole’ day.
November 25, 2004 - 12:04 PM on November 25th, 2004
“I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.â€
Which would that be?
Kill or murder?
November 25, 2004 - 12:30 PM on November 25th, 2004
the explanations i’ve heard that covers the instructions given to Israel is that the folks were so wicked-evil that it was a purification of the land more than a killing-murder, whichever it was.
November 25, 2004 - 12:39 PM on November 25th, 2004
Yeah, I know…
…kinda like those native American “savages” and Manifest Destiny.
I get sceert when we justify our conquests as ordained by God.
November 25, 2004 - 08:59 PM on November 25th, 2004
Not only that, shiloh, but the area was a center of trade and commerce. A lot of bad things like child sacrifice and such were being exported out of the area, and a heart transplant was in order.
It makes you think about the parallels between the two situations.
November 25, 2004 - 10:10 PM on November 25th, 2004
What two situations?
“area was a center of trade and commerce”?
I thought you were a conservative Republican capitalist?
November 25, 2004 - 10:14 PM on November 25th, 2004
Shilox, how far back do we go? Are you asserting that the Indians here had clear title to the lands they occupied, all granted in return for value received? Have you offered any land you might own back to the Indians in atonement? Are you really cognizant of just how the Indian Wars came about? Do you know where the phrase “Indian Giver” came from?
I know that no title I hold to land is better than my ability to defend it. I know that no one owns anything forever.
November 25, 2004 - 10:24 PM on November 25th, 2004
no i am not giving my land back. tell me the genesis of the Indian Wars.
it seems your saying that the Indians were the problem when expansion was the code of the road.
thrill me with your acumen.
November 25, 2004 - 10:28 PM on November 25th, 2004
Yes, I too am eager to hear.
November 25, 2004 - 11:43 PM on November 25th, 2004
Land title is an abstract term. The Indians did not have clear title in any sense of the word either then or now, any more than I have title to property just by walking over it or looking at it. We resolved differing opinions on land ownership tha same way such differences are always resolved. Please go whine somewhere else.
November 26, 2004 - 06:04 AM on November 26th, 2004
In 1830 the Congress of the United States passed the “Indian Removal Act.” This opened the door to removing the Cherokee people from the State of Georgia.
Before any Native Americans were forced to move, Chief Justice John Marsall of the Supreme Court ruled that the land was sovereign. He said the Cherokees would have to agree to move by signing a treaty with the United States.
The number of Cherokees supporting a treaty was small compared to the 17,000 who made up the tribe. In this case the minority ruled and the Treaty of New Echota was signed by President Andrew Jackson.
The result of this act was the Trail of Tears where Native Americans walked from Georgia to Oklahoma under very harsh conditions.
Over 4,000 lives were lost.
“Our manifest destiny [is] to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”
— John L. O’Sullivan, 1845
What does “allotted by Providence” mean?
Have you no remorse for the methods our government used to accomplish manifest destiny?
November 26, 2004 - 06:39 AM on November 26th, 2004
TAC — #18:
Since you think the Nazi’s were left leaning, would you say that Prescot Bushs’ business dealings with the Nazi’s make him left leaning?
November 26, 2004 - 07:38 AM on November 26th, 2004
39: If I had any idea what you’re talking about.
And again, you’ve made yet another unwise assumption about me.
November 26, 2004 - 08:17 AM on November 26th, 2004
dear Walter – you’re explanation that a lack of ‘clear title’ was a rationale for what Eurupeoans did to the Native Americans did not contain the profound wisodm i was expecting.
then you have the temerity to say “whine somewhere else.” please add to the list of countries i might go to, a list of locations where i should go whine.
that answer was disappointing, Walter. could you put a liile more effort into it?
November 26, 2004 - 08:31 AM on November 26th, 2004
1.) What “two situations” are you referring to in post #38?
2.) Are you saying you are NOT a conservative Republicans capitalist?
November 26, 2004 - 08:41 AM on November 26th, 2004
Shiloh,
Walters’ basic premise is wrong.
As I have posted, the US Supreme Court ruled that the land occupied by Native Americans, was “sovereign” which means it belonged to the Cherokee “nations” and required a “treaty” agreed upon by them to take the land.
And that, my friend Walter, is what is referred to as “indian giver”. The US government cut the deals, (i.e., treaties) then renegged.
Sorry, I can’t be proud of those facts. I can’t change the past, but I certainly want to learn by them and avoid making similar mistakes today — like we are in Iraq.
November 26, 2004 - 09:01 AM on November 26th, 2004
good morning dg.
i agree. the tone of my post hopefully communicated the disdain i hold not only for his premise, but also for his ethnocentric & bizarre thinking re: title.
don’t misunderstand, i thought his answer was a real hoot. who could have let that pitch go by without a home run swing?
November 26, 2004 - 09:21 AM on November 26th, 2004
I’m still waiting for someone to explain what “allotted by Providence” means.
Here’s a hint; it’s not Rhode Island.
prov·i·dence • ‘prä-v&-d&n(t)s, -”den(t)s • noun
• Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin providentia, from provident-, providens
1. (a) often capitalized : divine guidance or care (b) capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny
2 : the quality or state of being provident
See your tounge-in-cheek statement in post #21 (i.e., …unless Union soldiers were also the ‘chosen people’.)
November 26, 2004 - 10:49 AM on November 26th, 2004
“Occupied” is also relative. If one man sits alone in the middle of one thousand square miles, does he “Occupy” in the sense of your court decision? In the legal sense usually accepted, he would have to demark his claim and defend it. Where was the Cherokee deed showing they had purchased their land from the previous owners? And if you sincerely believe that your land was obtained illegally, you are obliged to return it.
Sometimes even the Supreme Court gets it wrong.
November 26, 2004 - 10:52 AM on November 26th, 2004
dear Walter E. Wallis,
when Europeans arrived in North America, indigenous peoples lost millions of acres of land. theft, murder & warfare, forced removal, deception & official government land programs have deprived them of their territories. land rights of Native Americans were never taken seriously. rather, they were seen as obstacles to the colonialist’s need for land. the Puritans did not respect the farms of Native Americans. they sought “legal”ways to get their land. if a Native American broke one of the rigid puritan religious laws, the fine was paid by giving up land. in this way, some puritans were able to amass large landholdings throughout the Massachusetts courts. John Winthrop, for example, obtained some 1,260 acres along the Concord River. (first time I tried cocaine, in the 70’s, was at Walden Pond. I’m just lousy with symbolism)
Native Americans had a very different idea about land. “originally there were no lands owned by individual Indians. all lands was held in tribal status, and its tribal governing body , the council, or headmen would a lot pieces of land for each family to useâ€, two Native American scholars explain. the Pilgrim idea of land was based on individual, private holdings. how ironic for a people who modeled themselves on ancient Israel!
ancient Israel’s understanding of the land & its distribution was more like the Native American idea of land than their own..
that was overlooked by the Pilgrims.
(from: manifest destiony:America the new Israel.
thanks, dg)
November 26, 2004 - 11:04 AM on November 26th, 2004
the details are sketchy in my memory & i could be wrong but didn’t wal-mart recently open a store on tribal burial grounds in New Mexcio?
manifest destiny applies to wal-mart? who knew?
it’s amazing that the ‘Trail of Tears and the ‘Long March’, where thousands of Indians died could have been prevented if only they could have gotten jobs as wal-mart greeters.
as Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise said in ‘Rainman”, ‘wal-mart sucks’.
but now we have pieces of paper that ‘legally’ entitle us to land.
what if the Indians made themselves little deeds of title? i guess the Europeans would have had to go home.
November 26, 2004 - 11:19 AM on November 26th, 2004
“Where was the Cherokee deed showing they had purchased their land from the previous owners?”
Perhaps it was “immanent domain” or “common law” — in any case, the country, and government system we all hold with high esteem (the US of A) ruled that the land belonged to the indians and they would have to agree by treaty to be removed.
I have a document from the very same government that says I own my property.
Walter, can you at least admit that our methods of manifest destiny and torn up treaties may have been somewhat cruel to other human beings?
And do you believe our historical right to expand is “allotted by Providenceâ€?
It didn’t stop with the great indian wars and westward expansion.
It was this same “Providence” that allowed us to steal Texas and the southwest from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines from Spain, and the conquest of Hawaii.
Shall I go on?
November 26, 2004 - 11:31 AM on November 26th, 2004
when George Bush was fronting for the Texas Rangers, he conned the public into paying for the new stadium in Arlington, but not before siezing the land by imminent domain from the Curtis Mathes family, then stifffing them on a fair recompense. it wasn’t until after that ownership moved on did the Mathes family get paid.
more proud Bush business history, brought to you the good folks at -”not blinded by the right” inc.
November 26, 2004 - 11:42 AM on November 26th, 2004
So, Bush stole the land, hiked taxpayers to build the stadium, then sold the Rangers for a huge profit?
Now I know why he’s always saying “God bless America.”
November 26, 2004 - 05:10 PM on November 26th, 2004
the Pope in the 16th century was able to grant land to whomever he chose & said it was a gift from God. the only problems with this genorosity was that often the people on the land didn’t believe what the Pope did. therefore, they were seen as ‘infidels’ deserving the wrath of the Almighty and damn well should have their lands conquered. this is how the spanish came to control south america. I guess having a deed to the land was a moot point in that God was involved and all.
i’m sure it was different here. not entirely sure.
acutually, not too sure.
November 26, 2004 - 05:18 PM on November 26th, 2004
gee, dg,
the last couple of days Right Voices has been alot of Left Voices. we should talk our pinko commie comrades into a coup.
i’ll bring it to the central committee who takes the pulse of the proletariat.
November 26, 2004 - 05:25 PM on November 26th, 2004
The pope also gave his blessings over Kings, which gave the peasants the illusion that God has ordained the King or Emperor.
It’s the same reason we put “God” on the dollar bill and in the Pledge of Allegiance.
We are not fighting a jihad with Islam…
…God bless America.
November 26, 2004 - 05:43 PM on November 26th, 2004
59 Shiloh, that was great! Yall have a happy turkeyday?
November 26, 2004 - 05:44 PM on November 26th, 2004
i figure that if some of the folks will agree that maybe the government at the time wasn’t as fair with the Native Americans as they could have been, then maybe the principle of questioning authority, even conservative doctrinal authority, will atttach to this day & age and we’ll make the leasers more responsive to their real bosses tho i know i am a voice crying in the wilderness or like a pelican alone on top of the roof.
November 26, 2004 - 05:46 PM on November 26th, 2004
hello – good day TAC – yes, even tho i had to work, a friend brought Thangsgiving here with all the fixins & a good time wa had by all and i ate like a hog at his trough.
you?
November 26, 2004 - 05:48 PM on November 26th, 2004
Fine, gonna do sum shopping,,,, oh, hang on mabe not my whfe is shiwing me her ass… Change of plans… later,
‘
November 26, 2004 - 05:53 PM on November 26th, 2004
have good time with…whatever you wind up doing.
November 26, 2004 - 06:06 PM on November 26th, 2004
We criticize Islam for being too radical, when most of them are not radical. They just despise our arrogance.
At the sametime we got Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, et al, and they believe this is a christian nation based on christian values (to be defined by fundamentalist evangelical christians like Falwell) and that God has a special place in his heart for America.
The christian values instilled in the Constitution were the ones that allow free will and freedom of worship — whoever.
When Bush drags God into his cesspool of war and gluttony, he desecrates those very same christian values he professes to uphold.
How could Bush be wrong when he is so sure God is on his side?
So if you quarrel with Bush, not only are you un-American, but anti-christian.
BTW — Jesus Christ was neither a Christian nor an American.
November 26, 2004 - 06:23 PM on November 26th, 2004
Nice post Lisa ! I agree totally with it.
November 26, 2004 - 06:34 PM on November 26th, 2004
i think Jesus converted to Catholicism before he died and then didn’t.
November 26, 2004 - 06:48 PM on November 26th, 2004
Strange how it was the Roman who crucified Christ, yet the Vatican is a country in — Rome!
Hmmmmm….
November 26, 2004 - 07:23 PM on November 26th, 2004
dg my friend, you go right up to the edge, dontcha. of course, sometimes you go over it, too.
conspiracy theories are some of my best friends.
November 26, 2004 - 07:33 PM on November 26th, 2004
After the crucifixion, Christs’ brother James argued with Peter about even creating Christianity.
James insisted that his brother was a Jew, and there was no need for a “new religion”.
What are we to make of that?
November 26, 2004 - 07:35 PM on November 26th, 2004
& where did this arguement take place? the corner deli? seriously – where do you find that text?
November 26, 2004 - 08:24 PM on November 26th, 2004
Texas was an independent nation after fighting fro freedom from Mexico, they then joined the United States, once voluntarily and once by coercion. We never owned Cuba, we gave the Phillipines independence, Puerto Rico and Hawaii can go with my blessings.
The supreme court, today, allows assaults on property rights based on fuzzy logic. I don’t know the past indian nation deals well enough to opine further than I have, but the arguments usually have very elastic opinions of what constitutes ownership. If the Indians want to sue, and many of them do, they can use the courts for recourse. If I am overcome with guilt I can always go to the neighborhood Indian casino and asuage my guilt. Justice must go forward, not backward.
November 26, 2004 - 08:34 PM on November 26th, 2004
I can’t remember where I read it, but I saw something else about it on the History Channel.
The argument may have been with Paul, and apparently, James changed his view on the new church, somewhat, after Jesus came to him as a spirit.
November 26, 2004 - 09:16 PM on November 26th, 2004
oday dg – here’s the line, & you’re in the distance, having crossed it 4 posts ago.
when i was growing up i was called kike, Christ killer & other colorful names.
as Lenny Bruce once said, “i got so tired of this, i finally said, ‘okay, enough. we did it. the Jews did it. us. my family, okay? i found a note in the basement which said, ‘i did it – i killed Christ’.
it was signed ‘uncle Morty’.
so let it go. it’s like baching Clinton. at some point, it really should stop./
anyway, that was a bit of a tangent.
the History Channel, while interesting, is not where i would go for theories regarding the genesis of the Church.
i’m familiar, somewhat, with the historical writing of Josephus, who fleshes out a lot of the enviornment surrounding the first century Church, and the religious and political personalites driving the Gospel story.
i’m sure there was a kind of religious smoke-filled room dynamic whee the bosses decided how best to accomplish their religious and yes, even a political purpose.
after all, the King of the Jews was supposed to be a conqueror of the Romans in a lot a people’s minds – not a man who washed feet. but – hey – business & profit was just not a priority.
but don’t present 71 as a fact of the matter without a bit more of a reliabler= source. maybe Fox News or the Wahington Times i could take.
not the History Channel.
November 26, 2004 - 11:35 PM on November 26th, 2004
House-a-phobia
Hastert Launches A Partisan Policy
In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.
Hastert’s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats’ influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year’s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if “the majority of the majority” supports them.
the healing continues
how is this country, the posters on this website, supposed to treat each other as neighbors – the loyal opposition – when the divides are being created for the sake of naked power and agendas that half the country obviously will not support.
so much for ‘reaching out’ & ‘earning trust’.
this is not how it’s supposed to be. i’m a bit frightened.
November 27, 2004 - 07:31 PM on November 27th, 2004
Awww shit!
November 27, 2004 - 08:08 PM on November 27th, 2004
Shiloh,
How did I cross a line?
1st, I said the Romans killed Christ, not the jews.
2nd, as far as the argument between James and Peter/Paul, there were clear disagreements and it wasn’t until after Christ had risen and visited James did he “believe”.
3rd, the point I am trying to make is that nations that rely on religion, (be it jew, christian, muslim, budist, shinto, hindu, or other) to jusitfy its political ambitions is headed for disaster.
In the case of America, by declaring America a “Christian” nation, not only is it in direct conflict with the constitution, it is anti-Christian.
Manifest Destiny made it alright to slaughter Native Americans because the land was ours — “allotted by Providence”.
All the above religions should be allowed to call America “home”. Wouldn’t Christ welcome them all?
November 28, 2004 - 05:29 AM on November 28th, 2004
This thread is funny:lol:
November 28, 2004 - 05:34 AM on November 28th, 2004
Shiloh, if you did kill the son of God that wasn’t very nice.
November 28, 2004 - 10:00 AM on November 28th, 2004
the line i mentioned concerned taking anything the History Channel said as Gospel.
November 28, 2004 - 10:22 AM on November 28th, 2004
there’sd another line – a funny one, that has to do with ‘values’.
i know homosexuality and school prayer and f;ag burning are important values to discuss, and have been discussed.
poverty is a ‘moral value’, isn’t it? pretty much that discussion has concerned geting those bums off the couch and off the pipe and getting a damn job!
that’s a convenient way to dispose of those ‘other’ pesky values that are not so sexy as the ones previously mentioned.
the fact that poverty among adults and children has risen dramatically over the past 4 years is what – becuase of Clinton or 9/11?
i forgot, they’re just bums, anyway. lousy bums.
November 28, 2004 - 10:39 AM on November 28th, 2004
Rush Limbaugh, taking a bread from his legal/drug problems & his thrid divorce was stunned because Nicolettle Sheridan posioned the children forever on Monday Night Football. (whether this was worse than than ‘nipple’ has yet to be decided)
the country was so outraged that the stations who showed in 50 times a day got the best ratings.
i’d write more but those 2 sluts on channel 4 selling beer has made me thirsty.
at least we have values, tho.
November 28, 2004 - 10:59 AM on November 28th, 2004
Sex always sells, especially when it comes to conservative Republican capitalism. “Moral Values” vary in accordance with their “Stock Values”.
Re#81:
What’s wrong with the History Channel? They interview historians and clergy representing appropriate religious history who offer various points of view on pertinent subjects.
They had some good ones on this morning about King David, and his son King Solomon.
It may have been the Biography Channel, I can’t remember, but it was informative.
November 28, 2004 - 04:13 PM on November 28th, 2004
Tolerance my b@@@, the fact is the world and its people are that word of Intolerance, and hate and murder, and rape, its a joke, that is why my people made this nation, do any of you know what Washington said about the world? if you think you are not being controlled by some evil people right here, ask why almost no real news about chai vang who murdered 6 guys? Hey People if Vang was named Daviess or james or myther, he would be called a killing raceist dog of evil, but me pointing that out makes me the raceists pig, oh well only in the USA.