RENEE’ HANNANS HENRY/Staff
One of the most controversial and successful figures of late 20th century politics wants to expand his brand to the 21st. Ralph Reed believes conservative voters of faith need a Christian Coalition 2.0.And the man once dubbed the “right hand of God” by Time magazine is returning to the arena where he had his greatest success to try and make it so.
“This is not going to be your daddy’s Christian Coalition,” Reed said in an interview to describe his new venture, the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “It has to be younger, hipper, less strident, more inclusive and it has to harness the 21st century that will enable us to win in the future.”
If so, perhaps this really will be a new start. After all, when Reed ran the original Christian Coalition from 1989 to 1997, he famously warned enemies they wouldn’t know what hit them “until you’re in a body bag.”
But, it’s been a decade since Reed left that stage, and he has suffered embarrassments and defeats the past few years.
Now, Reed wants back in. And, judging from the 2008 national elections, Republicans could use the help. But questions remain: Do Republicans need or want Reed’s new group? And can Reed still deliver it if they do?
…
“Even though I’ve been doing other things, this is kind of like Steve Jobs returning to Apple,” Reed said.When Jobs left the company he founded, Apple foundered. After he returned, Apple grew into an iconic firm that has captured the public’s attention in ways that all other tech firms wish to emulate.
“You have to reinvent it,” Reed said. “It’s the political analog to the iPod and the iPhone. It would be cool. It would be transformative. It would transform our politics and bring younger people to our ranks. All of those are critical imperatives.”
Ralph Reed is not going to be any more progressive than he’s ever been, because his mythology is rife with hatred and intolerance. He is no better (except in looks) than Pat Robertson (hence “the i-Pat”). He is the epitome of yesterday’s Christianity.
Christianity 2.0 will include gays, first and foremost, and not speak of bodybags or be involved with stealing money from native Americans. Christianity 2.0 will accept that non-Christians have equal rights, and that means that being a non-Christian should not mean you are still a viable candidate.
But let’s look at Mr. i-Pat’s own words for thoughts on how he sees the world:
“I honesty believe that in my lifetime we will see a country once again governed by Christians . . . and Christian values. What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time.”
[Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, May 1, 1990, Religious News Service]“I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag. You don’t know until election night.” [Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition Exec. Director,
from the Virginian Pilot and Ledger Star, 11/9/91]“Three years ago, Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Christian Coalition, wished not to be seen. ‘I want to be invisible,’ he said. ‘I do guerilla warfare…’… But on June 25th Reed played the expansive
host at a luncheon given by the Coalition, the most influential group on the religious right, which was attended by hundreds of delegates to the Iowa Republican Party convention. They were celebrating their victories in gaining control of the state Party’s central committee, ousting moderate Republicans, and in dictating a platform that supported the teaching of creationism in the public schools.”
["Christian Soldiers", New Yorker magazine, July 18, 1994]
What a wonderful and modern man! He’s all about inclusiveness and modernity, especially if you’re talking about white Christian men and the 1950′s.
Don’t think for a second I am disappointed – I am very happy. This is the best they have. After failing miserably, and then after several scandals, Ralph Reed is the best the Christians have to offer politics — let’s go back to the 1990′s? Oh, this is rich. Maybe they can find Jim Bakker or prop up the body of Jerry Fallwell in a “Weekend at Bernie’s” type of scenario.
Or MAYBE. they could find someone who would truly take Christianity to the next level, get it out of the bedrooms and doctors’ offices, and out of our wallets, and actually observe Jesus’ real teachings of treating everyone as you would like to be treated (OK that’s far from original to Christianity but you get the picture).
But there is no MONEY in REAL Christianity. They want MONEY and POWER, not compassion or love, so they turned back to the pretty king of yesteryear. That’s why they turned back to Ralph Reed.
Uh, Christianity doesn’t exclude those who define themselves by their homosexual acts, they exclude themselves from it.
…oh, what a tolerant thing to say, especially coming from someone who just said, “[Christianity] is rife with hatred and intolerance.”
You mean like what we just did in November?
Dilute it down to spanders-like Universalism?——No thanks. Hasn’t worked yet, and it never will.
So tell me Mr.—ethnically Jewish but politically and religiously, atheist—Silverman; exactly what do you think “real” Christianity is?
Dying!
Not just dying, but decaying from the inside. Ahhh, i love the smell of decomposing myths in the morning.
MMMM! Tastes like chicken!
real xtianity is a FRAUD based on a fable!
And jcc:
Real Christianity is Fascism in a silly hat.
jcc,
Here is Real Christianity. Tax evasion and child molestation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532555,00.html
Yes, the Bible is just full of passages that quote Christ condoning pedophilia, fraud and tax evasion.
So why am I not surprised by such a brilliant observation?—oh that’s right, because this is from the same person who apparently thinks self-sacrifice = suicide and the Bible is an explicit, exhaustive and encyclopedic history of the universe…
Ha!!! JCC thinks the buybull is what real christians are about!! A typical assumption from his addled mind.
The bible is also full of passages that quote christ condeming divorce but no passages where he mentions homosexuality at all. Why is there no large scale xian movement to outlaw divorce yet there is a fixation on condeming us gays?
Hmmm.
well, at least that’s consistent with the same deluded thinking that produced:
How sad—no, how addlepated.
alex:
Are you serious, or have you truly never heard of the Catholic Church’s “large scale” stance on divorce?
What about “hate the sin, not the sinner” don’t you understand?
Too funny. JCC is bringing up his past failures – in regards to his defense of an arroneous claim of circular reasoning – will shed a better light on him. I don’t know how that works. Maybe Sarah Palin does?
Too funny. JCC is bringing up his past failures – in regards to his defense of an arroneous claim of circular reasoning – in hopes that it will shed a better light on him. I don’t know how that works. Maybe Sarah Palin does?
“Too funny:” The addlepated what makes a duplicate post that attempts to deflect his documented delusion and contains the same misspelled word.
Here’s another Real Christian: Bible study and assault and battery.
http://www.courant.com/community/manchester/hc-web-manchester-jesus-0715jul16,0,2434240.story?jesus
Spelling error/double post comment = debate fail.
And here’s another fine xian! Let’s give a big round of applause to Tony Alamo:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31920103/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
And let’s not forget those bastions of morality, those pillars of their faith, Mark Sanford and John Ensign, two men who called for the resignation of President Clinton over Lewinsky-gate, but will not resign over their own affairs. Two members of “The Family”, an anti democratic, totalitarian organization that wants to turn America into a theocracy.
jcc,
I of course am aware that the catholic church doesnt allow divorce within the church but what confuses me is that there isnt a highly organised and funded xian movement to make civil divorce illegal in the USA in light of the xian movement to outlaw same sex civil marriages. This cherry picking truly confuses me.
atheist_republican:
And by that “reasoning,” here’s the quintessentially Real atheist: http://tinyurl.com/b335l
alex:
That isn’t a “highly organized and funded movement”?
You’re clearly missing the point. Outlawing divorce all together would be disastrous for victims of the two possible circumstances in which divorce is Biblically permissible. It isn’t cherry-picking to strongly discourage divorce on the logically and morally defensible grounds that individuals should be held to the commitment that they made to each other versus objecting to the demonstrably unnatural, immoral and unhealthy concept of same-sex marriage. They’re two entirely different concepts.
You realize that you’re talking about an institution that traditionally treated women as chattel? Arranged marriages that were the equivalent of barter contracts? The wedding band was a symbol of ownership?
As to ‘commitment they made to each other’ see above. & no, they’re NOT ’2 entirely different concepts’. The only difference is the physiology.
Really? Then why did Jesus place such emphasis on it’s integrity and clearly speak of it as an arrangement of mutual benefit (Matt. 19:6-9 and Mark 10:11-12)? You’re conveniently omitting pertinent facts…
Really? Then how on earth did the tradition of the husband wearing one ever get started?
I “saw above” but couldn’t find anything to unequivocally dispute it.
Sorry, not gonna resort to a gainsaying match with you.
Oh yes, a trivially minor detail…
Pathetic. JCC is reduced to asking KA what a mythical character thought about marriage.
Being obviously incapable of challenging the merits of my argument and not being able to conquer his infantile need to say something, what once again resorts to his usual, callow tactic of attempting to malign me personally instead of contributing anything of substance to the discussion.
I made it clear to JCC that ridicule is all that he will receive from me until he proves that he can argue with sincerity and rigor. Now he is taken to whining. Boo Hoo.
Ah, no, I don’t believe jay-sus ever existed, so I can’t accept your source. Sorry.
Dunno – what sources will you accept?
I’ll take that as a forfeit.
They say love is blind. Yes, it is a minor detail – to those of us who don’t want to force people to live by some obscure superstitious belief, or have Victorian prudery @ the reins of our control issues.
jcc,
Pol Pot is dead. But here is another Real Christian that is not: Child molestation.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–clergysexarrest0716jul16,0,4200299.story
JCC,
Here’s another Real Christian: Arson.
http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2009/jul/17/boulder-police-firefighters-fend-ax-wielding-man/
Krys:
Ahhh, so by that reasoning, the next time I reject out-of-hand any claims you make about the veracity of evolution, I’m sure you’ll sympathize and fully understand the open-minded approach that weighed the merits of all the evidence that I took to arrive at such a position…
Credible, historic ones; you know, ones that rely on what any historical assertion does: the written record corroborated by physical, archaeological evidence.
Actually, you should’ve taken that as a, “Given that you presented your case by reason, and all I’ve done is offered an unsubstantiated contradiction, therefore I understand why you refuse to continue with that until I offer one that is…”
Ahh, I see. Understanding and accepting that by far, the most historically proven, stable and mutually beneficial marriage definition is merely a “superstitious belief.” How enlightened of you.
Oh yes, the most successful of traditional, contemporary marriages are modeled on the master/slave, overlord/servant, Victorian model which, by its very nature, prohibits the couple from enjoying virtually any kind of mutual, marital benefits—let alone—true love.
Krys:
My apologies. I forgot that your license to dismiss any concept that you arbitrarily don’t believe in also gives you carte blanch to invalidate anyone else’s attempted use of the same tactic.
…more gainsaysing.
My apologies again. I guess I just imagined that your attempted qualification of “The only difference is the physiology” for your assertion of, “no, they’re NOT ‘2 entirely different concepts’” was nothing more than simple, unsubstantiated contratiction.
Then could you please clarify what you did mean?
Huh? Your words strongly suggest you’re equating marriage definition with a “superstitious belief.”
Yeah, the same way the state forces others to live by its “belief” that driver’s licenses are only issued for the safety of those who drive. But yeah, that’s just a belief that’s irrespective of common sense and a proven track record…
Oh, so any debased behaviors must be given credence just because they happened frequently in history? If that’s the case, then why don’t we condone slavery as a legitimate business practice today?—after all, it happens to be the “historical majority.” Talk about a red herring.
Really? Then please demonstrate when in human history that one man, one woman hasn’t been shown to be the safest and most practical definition?
Really? Could it be that those cases worked because the participants understood and valued he commitment they made to each other?
What does that have to do with the definition of marriage?
My apologies for the “enlightened” remark.
OT ALERT
From NYTimes
Iraq and Afghanistan – The fall-out of JCC’s true xianity.
Ahem – red herring, getting off-point.
There goes the bible! It’s out.
Yeah…I don’t know how you got that (wait, allegory as mind-pollution…hmmm), but that’s not what I meant.
No, still not what I meant. You’re forcing other people to live by your belief system. & the ‘marriage definition’ has changed multiple times over the centuries, just check w/any anthrologist on that – polygamy is the historical majority.
Oh here we go w/false dilemmas again. This fluctuates w/the times. Maybe not in your imagination, but certainly in reality.
Sometimes in arranged marriages, love grows or becomes, but not always. & in America, arranged marriages are looked down on w/repugnance – because the Suffragette movement brought women’s rights to the forefront.
I thought you were going to drop the snark, BTW? What happened there?
Krys:
I didn’t realize you’d replied to what’s post and I inadvertently responded to you in the previous “sub”-thread here: http://tinyurl.com/n4ufc5
Maybe you could use your clout with Silverman and get him to get rid of this most annoying “feature?”
‘Arbitrarily don’t believe in’? What’s that, free will? What is it that I ‘arbitrarily’ don’t ‘believe’ in? The supernatural?
More truth.
Vivid imagination you got there. The only difference IS the physiology.
Already explained it.
Not what I said, nor meant.
Apples = oranges. Driver’s license is a privilege, marriage is a civil right.
That wasn’t a smelly fish, that was an extended example of how the definition has been in flux – for centuries. Your slavery example is a non sequitor – vast gulf of difference between forced labor against one’s will as opposed to allowing individual adults to marry other adults of their choosing.
So lessee – ‘safe & practical’ should override personal freedoms? Anyways, are we talking global or local?
Probably. How this boosts your point is opaque.
Ummm…how women are viewed by society? As equal partners? Are you kidding?
I’ve already mentioned it to him. We’ll see.
Oh yeah, you can tell that they are getting desperate. What will be interesting down the road is watching them fail to do anything differently that is of any real importance.
Especially if the religious right fails again to find an appropriate puppet for the next presidential elections. It’s was common knowledge that McCain and this group hated each other right up to the point where it became clear that McCain had the best chance of winning, at which point they became best of friends, or at least on the surface.
Oh yes, it will be quite interesting to watch them try to change and are thwarted by their own egos and dogma.
I’m not a big fan of McCain, but at least he knows what these dominionists are up to and has the good sense to realize that it’s not just unconstitutional, but that these people are dangerous.
Maybe Ralph “Norman Bates” Reed will team up with Sarah “Carribou Barbie”.
Clearly a reaction to the Sanford/Ensign/Palin embarassments of the last few weeks. They know their political power is unraveling, so someone talked Ralphie to come back and save their ass.
I’m not so worried about ralphie-boy, but I am worried that he’s got some young protege that’s got some techno-savvy and a new line of bullshit. Maybe a fresh-faced white supremecist who looks good in a suit.
Slightly off-topic (but not really), has anyone else been following the “Family”? Its’ members include Sanford, Ensign, and quite a few other DC fuckwits, mostly republican but a few conservative dems as well.
It’s all over Daily Kos and Mother Jones has a new article on it, although I’ve yet to peruse it…
It’s gotta be connected to the “Return of Ralphie”. These things always are.
“The Family” is who everyone should be afraid of including xtians. these guys think that whatever they do is OK because they were chosen by god to lead the world. they cover for, and support, each other no matter what since they are doing the work of jesus. yea, these guys are super wackos.
I doubt the next religous right will be SBC-style like the last one. I would guess the next pulpit-politics group to emerge from the mormons, because they have less relation to bush, are growing, and have less baggage in the public persona. Reed will simply be a supporting
No way. Too regional. I’m not saying that he won’t help a mormon, but that’s not his base. He’s a deep south guy. He’s worried about Va., Ky., Tn., In., Oh,., and so on. He’ll have enough problems selling Mitt as the Prez to try and recruit mormons in those states. there’s still a big gap between LDS and evangelicals, as evans think LDS is a cult.
I know, pot to kettle: you’re black!”
Besides, that’s not ralphie’s forte. His deal is to teach churches how to campaign without breaking the law, or rather, how to subvert the law.
As I suspected. At the end of the article:
Reed is a snake oil salesamn—ONLY this and NOTHING more!
Not exactly true. He’s the guy who recruits the snake oil salesmen.
Then he finds money for them, gets ground forces for him, puts the polls in the field, buys the air time, funds the phone banks, sets up the web sites, and so on.
That’s why he’s more dangerous than your normal fundie. He may be past his prime, but if he finds the right horse, he can do some damage.
Maybe so, Rat bastard,
But, nothing does so much damage to our cause as racists and conspiracy theorists among our own ranks. Go ahead and whine about Fred Phelps, but his counterparts are here on this website, making every freethinker look like a fool.
NeoWolfe
OT ALERT
Someday soon the US will stop funding these barbarians war machine.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/71837.html
See – now you get an anti-Israeli source reporting, & it’s not reported right @ all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8149464.stm
A group of soldiers who took part in Israel’s assault in Gaza say widespread abuses were committed against civilians under “permissive” rules of engagement.
The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said Palestinians were sometimes used as human shields.
Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered anonymous accounts from 26 soldiers.
Hopefully, you can see the difference.
See, the countries surrounding it are 6 times worse, but they get a pass? A sympathy fuck? It’s incredible – by your standards, the Israelis are in the Iron age, but their neighbors are in the Stone age, but hey! That’s okay!
Just let the Homo Habilises slaughter the Neanderthals.
A distinction without a difference. Both articles agree on the main points and the McClatchy article gives more detail about how Palis were used as human shields to enter buildings.
Israel’s presence is responsible for the short comings they may have.
And don’t forget the article addresses the atrocities of the Israeli military against the Palis. Bringing other countries into the picture is a diversion tactic.
I had to contemplate for a bit just how racist that statement is. Very.
(1) I don’t agree that the Israelis are more civilized than the Palestinians.
(2) It was a diversionary tactic. Do you condemn the Israelis for these actions or not?
(3) I think you should admit that it was a racist statement.
I suggest you compare the wording.
You’re missing another piece to the puzzle. The Israelis are making some kind of effort to regulate this misbehavior. In fact, I’d like to see if anyone on the other side of the conflict ever does any such thing. So, no it’s not a ‘diversionary tactic’. You measure which side is more civilized.
The Israelis win. By a wide margin.
Bullshit. It’s an apt comparison. Who’s more civilized? The Israelis. Who’s more inclined towards genocide? Iran, KSA, etc. Who supports women’s rights? The Israelis. Who even allows a gay pride parade? You guessed it. Who allows atheism? You tell me.
Besides, if you’re a moral relativist, by the very definition of the term, you’ve got nothing to say anyways.
I might also add, that Israel is now @ 51% secularist, which means you would condemn the largest demographic concentration of atheists to refugee camps, or more ‘wandering the earth’. Nice.
I don’t support atrocities whether they are committed by secularists or not. Do you?
I dunno – define ‘atrocity’.
Don’t be stupid.
Then you’re wrong. I’ve listed enough reasons to convince a rational person. Are you a rational person?
I repeat: don’t be stupid.
I think you should realize it was an analogy. Obviously the Israelis are more…evolved than their neighbors. Fact is, that if the positions were reversed (i.e., the Jews were @ the mercy of the Arabs), you can bet your bottom dollar that the situation would be 10X worse.
KA,
Sorry, what has a good point. I’m not saying the palis, Hamas or Hezbollah or innocent angels, but both stories clearly note the use of human shields. Israel is in the process of devolving into what they were escaping from in Nazi Germany.
Granted, there are many Israelis that are disgusted by that war, the walls that keep the Palis at bay (and create the world’s largest concentration camp), and the rightward drift we see with each successive elction.
It all boils down to the location of their so-called promised land. the fact is that Israel is a failed social experiement. I mean, if it’s down to bloodshed, something screwed the pooch along the way, no?
And like you say, there are many secular jews in Israel; thy’re not the problem. The problem are the ones that see jewry as an ethnicity and a religion. The orthodox. The orthodox have a ministry within the military of Israel, and like here in the US, it’s become a problem insofar as the motivation behind the military’s policies.
And then there’s the militanrt nature of those establishing the settlements. They want a fight. They want to bring the jewish messiah, at least the ones I’ve seen interviewed.
The whole thing’s a clusterfuck, but yes, what has a valid point.
if the arabs are such monsters how did jewish communities flourish in arab/muslim lands while pogroms and the holocaust went on in europe.this blog will crash the day you say a word against jews or israel.
KA
oneday the israeli jews will be at the mercy of the arabs it will not be pretty.people like you will have innocent israeli jewish blood on your hands for encouraging their nonsense.
reason:
Is there some way you could sound a little less irrational? Trust me, the Israeli population isn’t listening to the likes of me, you, or anyone else on this blog.
So STFU.
That was not the point under contention.
Now THAT is a crock of shit. I don’t recall Nazis letting Jews get elected to office for 1 thing. I can point out many ways where that’s a bad, broken analogy.
Oh yeah, because all those Palis are being herded into gas chambers, & then their skin is used for lampshades.
Oh wait…not happening.
Ah…no. That’s stupid logic. By that token, we can declare every single gov’t on earth to be a failed social experiment, & disband them all.
Epic fail.
I’d suggest you read up on this a little more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel
Because you’re vastly oversimplifying.
If you’re talking about the Kahane, then be advised that it’s illegal to even be a member under Israeli law.
No, what doesn’t have a valid point. Neither do you. It’s the only liberal democracy in the whole fucking area. Israel is the only country that shows any sort of civilized behavior out of the whole fucking lot.
How anybody can defend a bunch of savages who honor kill their women & turn their children into walking anti-personnel claymores is un-fucking-believable, the same group of folks that have Mein Kampf in the list of national bestsellers, who’d gleefully slaughter the Jews – it just beggars the imagination.
& then people holler ‘genocide’ & ‘apartheid’ – it’s wrong, it’s fucking stupid.
No. Israel should stay. The Jews got fucked out of every country they’ve ever lived in for centuries. & why? Good old Christian legacy: they killed jay-sus!
If you & what want to continue that ghastly legacy, then knock yourselves out.
But don’t bullshit me w/that crock.
KA,
Please refrain from cursing AT me. It’s beneath you. Save that for the fucktard theists.
First of, what’s point was the fact that members of the Israeli army wer using palistinians as human shields. That may not be the point you wanted to talk about, but that’s where the debate started, and what I was talking about.
You seem to bew under the impression that i have a dog in this fight. I don’t. As a matter of fact, I have a serious loathing for Islam. It’s a guttertrash religion festering on the ass of society. Furthermore, I have a deep respect for reformist jews in general (fuck the orthos). I’ve even dated a few. Plus, you have to hand to the jews of long ago. I mean, their version of religion caused the death of polytheism. They were reviled for it, and yes accused of killing a messiah that never really existed, which is an unfortunate thing. But, the romans feared the destruction of their empire, and a fall guy was needed. The jews were pissing them off anyway, so the political patsy game ensued. Rome removed them from their home. A grave injustice, but that’s politics.
However, herein lies the basis of my opinion. Say you buy a house (or the UN gives you a sovereign charter) in a neighborhood that your great great grandmother owned, but all your neighbors are cannibals smeared head to toe in feces. Now, the house is still halfway decent, a bit run down and has some plumbing problems, and you have the aforementioned neighbors. You attempt to keep to yourself, improve the property, but the trailer trash is throwing eggs, teepeeing, and so forth. Eventually, punks break in, trash the place, rob you blind and kill, then eat the family dog.
You knew that these idiot cannibal neighbors lived there to begin with, but you moved in anyway, because you were so blinded by your sympathetic feelings toward dear ol’ granny. Whose fault is that?
Also, I wasn’t aware that every other country in the world was established in 1948 via a UN resolution, after the descendants of the original population were forced to move away nearly 2000 years before. If that’s the case, then sure, every other country in the world are failed social experiments.
And liberal democracy? Only by the loosest definition. Netanyhu(?) has a serious messiah complex. It’s been reported that he thinks god has appointed him to “save Israel”. Sound familiar? And if any nation votes a guy and allies like Avindor Lieberman in, then I have a hard time with that phrase.
Not to mention the siege of Gaza, which only just ended. Sure, starve them to death. That’ll calm ‘em down.
maybe if jewish tax collectors,merchants hadn’t cheated and stole from christian serfs,peasants they wouldn’t have been so hated.the jews have a death wish.i agree with you though israel should stay and every religious jew should be sent there.look at those ultra orthodox jews no wonder mein kampf is popular.
OK reason, you’ve officially disgusted me. Next time you want to agree with me, DON’T.
One more point, KA: I do believe Turkey is a Democracy. Iraq is, for what it’s worth…
People make stupid comments, I tend to lose my cool a bit. Besides, you should know my motto: NO FREE PASSES. Not for you. Nor me. Not Jcc, or what. NOBODY.
I was pointing out to What, that his article starts out misstating it. Re-read the opening paragraph.
I wasn’t talking about Jews in general, I was talking about Israel. All of that backstory kinda pales when you compare Israel to Nazi Germany.
That’s also history. But buttresses my point – they’ve been tossed out of every country since then too. Where do they go? Where do they stay?
Terrible analogy. You miss the point, & blindly too.
Missing the point purposely? There’s always been bloodshed. Is that right? No. Simply point me to a major governmental power that doesn’t have blood in its past.
Yeah, you’re going to have to give me your definition of ‘liberal democracy’, because as far as I know, that’s 1 of the few governments that allows: Pride parades, women’s rights, atheist’s rights, etc.
Hey, don’t shit in a cone & tell me it’s ice cream then.
KA
The point is that the Israelis are barbarians. With all of their superior fire power and armor they take to using human shields to enter buildings. You seem to support this behavior. Please say it ain’t so.
what:
No, I don’t, don’t be a fucking idiot. Maybe you ain’t paying attention.
& no, not ALL the Israelis are barbarians, which has been my point all along. I’ve never, ever put Israel above criticism: nobody is.
I defend Israel’s right to exist.
& again, if you’re a moral relativist, then you’ve got absolutely nothing to say on the matter anyways.
What is a moral relativist? I have lots to say on the matter!
That “right” is simply irrelevant.
No it’s not, because it already exists. Here, let’s use your specious logic:
Palis commit honor killings.
Palis strap bombs to their kids.
Palis want to slaughter Jews wholesale.
Ergo, Palis are barbarians. Hence, we should abolish Palestine & the Palestinians altogether.
But wait! They had their land taken away from them! No, can’t prove it in ANY court of law. In fact, can’t prove it @ all! But hey! Hearsay’s good enough for me!
Geez, do you listen to yourself?
In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.
So are you or aren’t you?
KA
I am saying that your claimed “right to exist” is irrelevant because it simply will not be enough to assure existence – not even close. Too many factors are working against Israel. It will not survive much longer.
The converse is not my argument at all. You know as I have stated before that Israel can not survive and it’s barbaric methods to cling to power will only cause much suffering. I do not want my government to fund such a doomed and costly – in so many ways – enterprise.
I can not answer your yes or no question based on the definition you provided. Just for fun, can you determine (based on classical logic) why I would make such a statement?
Somehow I have difficulty believing that.
You realize that if Israel falls, the whole region plummets into chaos? & the US would be quick to ally itself w/someone – likely Egypt or Kuwait?
You’d best hope you’re wrong.
Ah yes, I hear an old Norse god rolling his dice again.
Either you are or you aren’t. Of course, you like to change definitions to suit your needs – kinda like JCC, the words mean what YOU want them to mean.
So basically, you’re telling me you don’t have a philosophical framework to stand on, thereby putting you in the sophist’s camp, right?
KA
I can’t answer your yes-no question because I have no idea what “objective and/or universal moral truths” means,
What the fuck did I start?
Look, everyone is making mountains out of molehills.
Throwing each others’ quotes at each other solves nothing.
(t)Reason’s dementia aside, I was doing this out of love. I wish not for another Israeli to die from hate.
I was looking to debate policy points, but it seems that ain’t gonna happen.
Disappointing….
what:
That’s no surprise, really. That’s just a variant on Loki’s wager. So you admit you have no epistemological ground to stand on.
DaRatBastid:
You had nothing to do w/it. Me ‘n what fight about this all the time. Been about what, 2 years now, we hash this out over ‘n over again. Every 2-3 threads, he goes OT about Israel, we put up our dukes.
It’s just a blog, dude.
It’s how we fisk.
I’m pretty sure none of us want people to die.
Coming from the guy who compared Israel to Nazi Germany, that’s rich. Using incendiary rhetoric while trying to play peacekeeper is probably a bad idea.
Still not correct, he is the guy who convinces the snake to tythe 10% of its oil to be sold by the church, tax free.
follow the money.
Again we find ourselves wasting our time debating Whutthole’s racial hatred and conspiracy theories. Don’t you freethinkers ever get tired of wasting your pearls by throwing them into a sty of pig shit?
NeoWolfe
Neoplasm
I doubt that anyone here accepts your accusation that I harbor racial hatred.
Godless, to get back to your christian-gay obsession, its simply that they’ve never read the bible. After all, David and Johnathan get married in 1 Sam 18:3:
“Then Johnathan and David made a covenant, because they loved as much as their own soul.”
There simply not “true christians”. (/sarcasm, but the verse is real)
I love the random sh!t in the bible and how it all contradicts. Almost like it was made up by a bunch of different men…
Im just confused that, unlike the opposition to gay rights, there isnt a highly organised and funded xian movement to outlaw civil divorce here in the USA. When you consider that jesus never spoke a word about gays but he spoke at length about his disapproval of divorce it makes little sense that xians arent taking to the streets to demand that marriages be a lifelong contract by order of civil law. Likewise, I am confused that xians no longer show widespread support of slavery since jesus clearly wasnt bothered by this practice and seems to have condoned it. Where is the consistency among those who would impose their interpretation of biblical precepts on all of us?
godless,
There is actually a school of thought that Jesus was gay. One, he never married. Two, the apostle John always referred to himself in the third person as: The disciple that Jesus loved.
The OT referred to a “Jubilee year” which happened every fifty calendar years in which all slaves were released from service. That of course did not prevent anyone from selling themselves or their children back into slavery for a negotiable price. And the down side was that if you wanted to sell your children into slavery, it was known that the contract was only good until the next “jubilee”. It just drove down the price of slave labor.
What you say is true, and more so. Those that Joshua did not slaughter mercilessly in his genocidal campaign through Caanon were pressed into slavery. All with god’s blessing. Jehovah the Murderer was also Jehovah the slave trader.
One of Jesus’ most well known parables was about the “evil slave” that knew his master to be one who “reaped where he did not sow” and “gathered where he did not winnow.” My guess is that he was a freethinker who realized that god was an asshole. But, sadly, he was thrown out where the weeping and the gnashing of teeth go down. Reminds you of the Salem witch trials, doesn’t it?
True story, godless, there is nothing in the buybull, OT or NT against slavery.
NeoWolfe
All the more surprising that most modern xians, especially black xians in America, dont support slavery based on a biblical worldview. Along with the absence of a widespread movement to outlaw civil divorce and to demand public stoning of adulterers this is probably the most blatant instance of cherry picking among those who claim to structure their lives around biblical precepts. You have to almost admire fred phelps of westboro baptist church for his dedication to wanting to rid the USA of us sodomites and adulterers becasue he is being honest to his scriptures.
Jesus was gay?? IF he existed, i don’t think he was gay.. Gays don’t have sex with whores..
NAACP to Support Marriage Equality?
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98925.asp
Perhaps there is some hope for combating the extreme homophobia in the black community. I hope the NAACP does the right thing and make me rethink my attitude toward the black community.
are you nuts,you are white to them you will always be a target even if you declare yourself celibate.
btw the naacp was created and controlled by jews for most of its history with the mission of pitting black and white christians against each other.
obama in speech to naacp called for USA to be renamed UNITED STATES OF AKRASIA.
calm down hotheads i’m joking.
It is for the very reason that there are so many mental midgets spouting off their mouths about events of history of which they zero knowledge, that makes me keep my distance from this perversion of freethought. Bigots, conspiracy theorists, and those who just choose to be ignorant of facts. The idea that you do not believe that any god of religion is responsible for the creation of the universe just makes you a kindergartner on the right track. The rest of your delusion places you right back in the same looney bin with JaCCoff and Phreedumbfuck. Most of you apparently have never experienced an intelligent thought outside your greed, hatred, prejudice, or hormones. Okay, it’s your lives.
NeoWolfe