Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Religion, and 9/11.

Religion 9/11

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 02:34 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 06:25 AM, said:

I'm still not clear on how you connect Bush to religious fanaticism re: 9-11. I mean I think the perpetrators of 9-11 were certainly fanatics. But I'm not seeing the Bush thing.
Bush's responses to 9/11, which all contained religous statements to one degree or another, showed me that he did not see religion as a problem, but only their religion, and their fanatic application of it, to be a problem. He believed (believes) "My sh*t don't stink".

Quote

Frankly however, I think that a lot of clarification would result if people would continue to be careful not to overgeneralize.  Overgeneralizations about religious doctrine are no more helpful than over generalizations about political affiliations.
You can't take statements out of context of the overall discussion or conversation becomes impossible. When I said "They are accepted, rather than debated. They are given, rather than concluded." It was clearly, in context, referring to Christianity. If you can show me in any Christian doctrine that God's word can be wrong, therefore opening the door to debated, I will retract my statement. Until then, I don't see how it can be considered a generalization in the way that this board objects to, because there has to be some possibility that I am including people for whom said generalization does not apply.

#42 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 03:00 AM

Quote

Guilt by association? I am personally not convinced of the veracity or fairness of this statement. You mention other quotes almost as bad by Bush Jr.; I'd like to see them. I don't believe in judging one person by another person's deeds, no matter what their relationship.

"It is fitting that we have a National Prayer Breakfast. It is the right thing to do, because this is a nation of prayer." - G.W. Bush

"I call on every American family and the family of America to observe a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, honoring the memory of the thousands of victims of these brutal attacks and comforting those who lost loved ones. We will persevere through this national tragedy and personal loss. In time, we will find healing and recovery; and, in the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, 'one Nation under God.'" - G.W. Bush

The same phrase "One nation under god" his father used to claim I should not be a US citizen. Yet, when the ACLU tries to get this removed from the pledge of allegiance they are told it is trivial and unimportant and just a word.

"And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image." - G.W. Bush

"I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government." - G.W. Bush

"And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and laws." - G.W. Bush

"After all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism." - G.W. Bush

"Our new faith-based laws have removed government as a roadblock to people of faith who hear the call." - G.W. Bush

"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president." - G.W. Bush

"Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof" - G.W. Bush

"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." - G.W. Bush on Ft. Hood's decision to allow Wiccan rituals just as all military bases allow rituals of the Christian faith

The list of GWs references to God and Religion is staggering, and I could keep this up for hours.

Edited by Hambil, 12 August 2004 - 03:03 AM.


#43 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 03:12 AM

Here's how it looks to me: Religious fanatics attacked the US in the name of their God. Our president responded by invoking his god's name. What is this, my God is bigger than your God? Or, since most people agree that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, doesn't that make it a contest between who God likes better? By invoking his god every time he talks about the war on terror, GWB makes this a contest between whose religion is right. It blurs the issue. What is the issue? The issue is that we were attacked, brutally, and that was wrong, regardless of religion.

I am disturbed by the erosion of separation of church and state. GWB makes me nervous as hell because he is trying to make his beliefs into law (I'm referring to the gay marriage issue and the abortion issue in particular). I don't like the fact that he begins cabinet sessions with prayer, and constantly refers to God in his speeches. (Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I don't like when Kerry does the latter either.)

A president is supposed to represent ALL of us. Not just Christians. If we were to elect Wiccan president, I wouldn't want her referring to the Lord and Lady, or whatever gods she personally worshipped either. I wouldn't want her to start cabinet meetings with an invocation of Zeus, or to pray to Arawn at the funerals of our soldiers. When responding to an attack such as 9/11, I wouldn't want her saying Athena is on our side, or that we will prevail because Mars gives us strength.

When the president speaks to comfort the nation, shouldn't he speak to ALL of us? Not just a certain religious group? I wanted comfort after 9/11, we all did. I wanted to feel I could trust the leader of my country to lead well, and to lead all of us equally in this desperate time. Instead, I felt excluded and, frankly, betrayed.
Posted Image

#44 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 08:50 AM

Handmaiden07, on Aug 11 2004, 09:40 PM, said:

HM07 said:

That's not religious freedom. That's you dictating what religions must teach.

Well, in a way I suppose it is.  The thought was primarily about the concept of "And that it is not your job to convert him or kill him in the name of any God," but I'll accept that it is telling someone to keep their religious practice away from me, even though that practice of faith urges them to 'teach' and convert.  But I believe this is the crux of the religious freedom debate.

Historically the practice of some proselytizing religions is to convert by any means possible, and has included killing the body to save the soul.  How do we allow for the freedom of other's to NOT be converted and to continue to practice their chosen faith in peace?

My idea of freedom is that my freedom ends where another's begins.  Or in this case that your freedom of religion ends where mine begins.  To say that I'm not allowing you (2nd person plural you) to convert me in the manner you choose is nonsense in the context of religious freedom.  

One can preach to convert those who consent to be preached to, but forcing another to listen or forcing another to convert or die, is not freedom for those who have to listen against their will or die.  This has happened in history and not just with Christianity.  I find it convenient that the proselytizing religions can claim it is part of their religious belief to 'speak' to me against my will, because that is the very thing a zealot uses to escalate his attempts to 'show me the truth and the error of my ways'.  It is the very foundation of fanaticism.  

It's a religious practice that intrudes on the freedom's of others.  While for the most part I am like you, I realize that someone is practicing their faith and I let it go, but in the larger social context, I'm well aware that I'm giving up my own privacy in order to allow him to practice that religion.  I'm giving up the freedom of my own privacy when that man on the subway forces me to listen.  

How do we reconcile these two things?  Especially when it is this very thing (converting to the true way) that is at the root of religious fanaticism everywhere.  I'm open to discussion of this, but I'll be honest, history is full of reason's why I feel as I do.

HM07 said:

The accusation that someone is "self-righteous" when they attempt to follow the dictates of their faith, including proselytization, is inherently unfair, in my humble opinion. 

Yes, I can see that you object and I in no way meant to minimize the pursuit of the faithful.  I mean that sincerely.  But I have to ask you, how do we balance the freedom to practice one of the proselytizing religions with religious privacy?  How can granting one religion who has as a doctrine to 'convert the sinners' be balanced against a person who practices a religious path of introspection and quiet reflection?  I'm serious here, not being flippant.  

In my example on the subway, that time going to work was a time of meditation for me, a time I spent in my own communion between me and what I believe.  How do we reconcile the fact that one man's practice of his faith interfered with my quiet meditation?  

These are the questions that I ask myself.  These are the things I see as problematic on the world scene.  I meant no harm to you HM07 or a sweeping generalization against any religion in particular.  I meant only to illustrate the problem of such practice when (in the case of) proselytizing religions, that practice is sometimes about invading the privacy of others, not to mention it is a practice of declaring what I believe, to be "Wrong".  And since I am wrong, it is OK to disrupt me with the "Truth according to XYZ".

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#45 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 09:29 AM

Sorry Morrhigan.

What was he suppose to say to the country. The speech that so upset you is  a prayer for the people who lost family on 9/11.

FDR ended his famous Dec. 7th Speech with the words "so help me God."

The Shuttle disaster under Regan had a religious ending for the souls of those men and women lost. The recent one also did.

Basically people at a time of death turn to their faith for strength and comfort. I did after my mother's death.

Sad to say when the president is making such a speech he is not saying that your grief for the dead is wrong,but that he is trying to reach us all. Yes everyone knows someone will not be reached that is the part as good people we reach out to those missed and bring them comfort.

If the President was wician and called on the Lord and Lady he would need to explain what he was doing. If he called upon Kali he would need to as well. But that use of the bible told a majority of us that we had to have faith that those who had died were with God and suffered no more.

That was actually comforting to a lot of people.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#46 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 09:38 AM

Morrhigan said:

If we were to elect Wiccan president, I wouldn't want her referring to the Lord and Lady, or whatever gods she personally worshipped either. I wouldn't want her to start cabinet meetings with an invocation of Zeus, or to pray to Arawn at the funerals of our soldiers. When responding to an attack such as 9/11, I wouldn't want her saying Athena is on our side, or that we will prevail because Mars gives us strength.

G1223 said:

If the President was wician and called on the Lord and Lady he would need to explain what he was doing.

If the president was Wiccan, according to GW himself, he should be able to do just about anything he wants with it, since it is not a religion and therefore cannot violate seperation of church and state.

"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." - G.W. Bush on Ft. Hood's decision to allow Wiccan rituals just as all military bases allow rituals of the Christian faith

Though I suspect if it ever became a reality, Bush would 'flip-flop' on that statement pretty darn fast.

#47 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 09:56 AM

Did you not see the implied comment

Which is to say if The president was a Wician and was trying to say comforting words to people. And used the Lord and Lady as part of the words he likely would have to explain what the Lord and Lady were.  Were he to do as he did and use that Paslm people know that he is trying to comfort those who lost anyone on 9/11.

He did so the easiest way he knew and that was with a few words of faith. Maybe it bugged you but you are not the whole US and if you are a fireman or policeman you know what was said was to ease grief and hardship of those who had lost  family.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#48 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 10:10 AM

G1223, on Aug 12 2004, 02:54 PM, said:

Did you not see the implied comment

Which is to say if The president was a Wician and was trying to say comforting words to people. And used the Lord and Lady as part of the words he likely would have to explain what the Lord and Lady were.  Were he to do as he did and use that Paslm people know that he is trying to comfort those who lost anyone on 9/11.

He did so the easiest way he knew and that was with a few words of faith. Maybe it bugged you but you are not the whole US and if you are a fireman or policeman you know what was said was to ease grief and hardship of those who had lost  family.
I understand why it was done. And I am glad it comforted people. It did not comfort me. Just the opposite in fact.

My point in posting the Bush Sr. quote was to show that by the time 9/11 occurred I'd already more than had it with the Bushs and their bigoted religious views.

You can jump all over the word bigot and say I'm generalizing, but anyone who says I can't be a citizen because I'm an atheist (or a wiccan because that's not a real faith and by extension makes wiccan's atheists) is a bigot.

#49 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 10:26 AM

And this is the current Bush?  My father and mother both had low opinions of African Americans am I racist?  You want to hate Bush for trying to comfort people and hate him becasue hisFATHER made a speech saying that non christians were not citizens.

He does not think your faith is valid.  But he is not working with congress in the making of laws against your faith or anyone's faith. He said he hoped the army would reconsider. He did not write an order to reverse the decision. Which is his right as CinC.

For a bigot with a mission. He sure is taking his time on taking your religious freedoms from you.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#50 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 10:54 AM

G1223, on Aug 12 2004, 03:24 PM, said:

And this is the current Bush?  My father and mother both had low opinions of African Americans am I racist?
No. But if you talked about how great it was to be white, a lot, without ever 'really' crossing a line, I'd be more than a little suspicious. GW referred to Wicca using the word 'witchcraft' which shows not only prejudice, but malise.

Quote

You want to hate Bush for trying to comfort people and hate him because hisFATHER made a speech saying that non christians were not citizens.
I keep pointing out the big picture, and you keep going back to specifics. I don't know if you aren't hearing, or I'm doing a poor job of explaining.

Quote

But he is not working with congress in the making of laws against your faith or anyone's faith.
Faith based initiatives which don't include Wicca do just that. Not to mention they pervert the intent of the establishment clause and, like the patriot act, subvert my freedoms in ways far more dangerous than an obvious attempt to modify the constitution.

Quote

For a bigot with a mission. He sure is taking his time on taking your religious freedoms from you.
I think he's done pretty good in just four years, considering how difficult the task is.

Edited by Hambil, 12 August 2004 - 10:55 AM.


#51 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 11:24 AM

But Hambil, in much the same way as I view Bush's proposed marriage amendment a function of Christian fanaticism (not Islam fanaticism for crying out loud) why isn't it okay for people to focus in on the particular fanaticism involved in 9-11?

Lil
Posted Image

#52 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 11:36 AM

Hambil, on Aug 12 2004, 01:51 AM, said:

That was not my intent, and I apologize if it upset you. Let me clarify:

The 'no' refers to the phrase 'just because they are religiously motivated'.

As in: "No - I don't object to these initiatives just because they are religiously motivated, I object to them because - etc..."
Thank you for the clarification.  And yet - I still don't agree with your characterization of religious thought.  A lot of our ideas are "accepted" and not "debated."  The validity of our social structure as a whole is "accepted."  We accept that our political system, that is, the one we are born into, is the best.  While we may analyze a lot of it critically, there is much that we take for granted.  An example:

I usually tell people that I had made up my own religion, and if I had gotten the nod from God I would have gone ahead and launched it.  One of the features of that "religion" was democratically elected "clergy."  God had other plans for me.  Turns out that God already had a religion ready and waiting for me, one which included democratically elected leadership! (But no clergy.)  So far so good! Only, in my faith, you can't "run" for election, and you can't debate who should be elected, and you can't nominate anyone for election....  That's a way of doing things that never occured to me - it never occurred to me that there was any other way of doing elections.  I have observed in my brief time of being Baha'i some of the flaws inherent with the Baha'i election system... they aren't actually flaws in the system, as much as they are hampered by the current stage of development of the Faith.  I still believe in it... and watching the viciousness of the current election cycle, I've often thought about which elements of the Baha'i system would be good to import into the American political process to get the process to be about the issues, and not about the personages.  IF someone ran on a platform of campaign reform and I came out in support of that person because his or her ideas matched my own - according to your thinking, my support is invalid, because I'm supporting them based on accepted beliefs inherent in my belief system, while in fact, I most certainly DID evaluate critically the beliefs themselves, including their applicability to the social construct outside of my faith.

Quote

And, thinking critically about how to reflect your religious beliefs in your life is good. But it is not the same as thinking critically about the merit of those beliefs.

No, it isn't.  But critically thinking about the merit of those beliefs may not result in the discarding of the same.  Everything that I'm reading suggests that unless that outcome is what comes about, it doesn't count.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#53 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 11:44 AM

Handmaiden07, on Aug 12 2004, 04:34 PM, said:

Everything that I'm reading suggests that unless that outcome is what comes about, it doesn't count.
That's not what I believe. In fact, two people, religious and non religious, can reach the same conclusion by applying critical thinking to their beliefs.

The difference is, when I question my belief and find a flaw, I fix it. When a Christain does the same, they prey for understanding (over simplification). In other words, they usually don't question the belief, but instead themselves. "This belief makes no sense to me, so I am flawed." as opposed to "This belief makes no sense to me, so it is flawed."

#54 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 11:45 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 04:22 PM, said:

But Hambil, in much the same way as I view Bush's proposed marriage amendment a function of Christian fanaticism (not Islam fanaticism for crying out loud) why isn't it okay for people to focus in on the particular fanaticism involved in 9-11?

Lil
It's more than okay. I was objecting to applying that specific focus to my anger, and saying "Is this why you're angry? I don't understand? What's the big deal?"

#55 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 11:57 AM

SubwayCait, on Aug 12 2004, 09:48 AM, said:

Well, in a way I suppose it is.  The thought was primarily about the concept of "And that it is not your job to convert him or kill him in the name of any God," but I'll accept that it is telling someone to keep their religious practice away from me, even though that practice of faith urges them to 'teach' and convert.  But I believe this is the crux of the religious freedom debate.

Historically the practice of some proselytizing religions is to convert by any means possible, and has included killing the body to save the soul.  How do we allow for the freedom of other's to NOT be converted and to continue to practice their chosen faith in peace?
The way we do now.  We establish that killing is illegal for anyone, no matter what they say their reasons are, and we enforce the law.  

We teach the truth.  One of the consequences of "separation of church and state" is the unfortunate fact that critical examination of religious texts (for instance) is entirely in the hands of religious leaders who may or may not have the best interests of the faith or their followers in mind.  If I had my way, I would make sacred texts of the represented faiths in the country mandatory school work - not as an exercise of religion - but as an exercise of actual truth.  The claim that it is ok to kill people in order to proseletize often disappears when the actual text is examined cover to cover.  Ok... that's one of my fringe ideas.  But I stand by it...

Quote

My idea of freedom is that my freedom ends where another's begins.  Or in this case that your freedom of religion ends where mine begins.  To say that I'm not allowing you (2nd person plural you) to convert me in the manner you choose is nonsense in the context of religious freedom.

We are not disagreeing on this principle.

Quote

One can preach to convert those who consent to be preached to, but forcing another to listen or forcing another to convert or die, is not freedom for those who have to listen against their will or die.

I also validated your pov here, in my prior post.  A person has a right to preach.  You are not obligated to listen.  In your example of the guy on the train - the only thing I would argue there is that this guy had a captive audience - you didn't have the option of not listening to him.  OTOH... you similarly don't have any option about the advertisements in the same subway car.  I get grossly offended by the overly sexual commercials that imply that the way to get a woman is to douse hard liquor down her throat.  I find it offensive because I don't drink, and I find it threatening to me as a woman.  To me, its one step shy of advertising daterape drugs.    But - there they are, all over the car...  with me having to stare at my feet or close my eyes if I want to avoid them.   Public nuisance laws govern the subway preacher's activities, as well as the advertisements.  I don't think any additional strictures are actually able to be applied.

Quote

This has happened in history and not just with Christianity.  I find it convenient that the proselytizing religions can claim it is part of their religious belief to 'speak' to me against my will, because that is the very thing a zealot uses to escalate his attempts to 'show me the truth and the error of my ways'.  It is the very foundation of fanaticism.

I agree.

Quote

HM07 said:

The accusation that someone is "self-righteous" when they attempt to follow the dictates of their faith, including proselytization, is inherently unfair, in my humble opinion. 

Yes, I can see that you object and I in no way meant to minimize the pursuit of the faithful.  I mean that sincerely.  But I have to ask you, how do we balance the freedom to practice one of the proselytizing religions with religious privacy?  How can granting one religion who has as a doctrine to 'convert the sinners' be balanced against a person who practices a religious path of introspection and quiet reflection?  I'm serious here, not being flippant.  

There is no balancing.   Everyone has a right to speak.  Let me ask another question.   What if, instead of religion, what was being pushed was politics?  Its election time.  Walking down the street, I am likely to get accosted by people who will say things like "Do this to get rid of Bush."  "Sign this to support this political cause."  I'm likely to walk past a picketline with people shouting at the top of their lungs about unfair management practices.  Do we tell them that they need to confine themselves to talking to people who gave them permission to speak?  I don't think so.  Do we tell them that because some other labor disputants have chosen to enter arbitration that they should not be on the street yelling? I don't think so.   Freedom of speech ALWAYS involves a give and take.  There IS a point at which you are infringing on my privacy - that place is in my private space.  You may not come on my property or in my home or in my workplace and force your views on me.  But in public space, I can simply turn up my walkman... ;)

Cait, btw, I know you aren't being flippant (whereas, I actually am. :blush:  I seem to be in a flippant mood today!  My apologies.).  I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply.  I just am raising the redflag about treating religious speech differently in any arena BUT the spectrum of government officials speaking on behalf of the state.

HM07

Edited by Handmaiden07, 12 August 2004 - 12:00 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#56 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 12:14 PM

Finally, since it came up in this thread, and since I mentioned it myself in the last post, I want to comment on the rights of elected officials to use such phrases as "God, prayer, etc."

We had this discussion before, and I think we finally all had a consensus opinion that giving the appearance of religious sanction for one's actions is a no-no in American politics.  But some of the quotes offered have to do with emotive, non-policy issues... the realm of speech that can only be personal and heartfelt.  I dislike the idea of insisting that politicians refrain from mentioning God in those contexts.  At the same time, I understand the concerns of those who's concept of deity isn't accurately described as "God" in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "He" sense, and I understand the concerns of those who don't have a concept of "God."  And I believe that elected officials should make every effort to speak for all of their constituents.  I therefore agree that the speeches of some of the presidents have not done enough in this regard.  I don't agree that this makes them bad or haters of atheists or people attempting to blur the separation of church and state.  But, having said that, I respect also the fact that my ears are hearing the words of someone who, like myself, believes in God, giving me a different perception perhaps, than the perceptions of those who do not have such belief.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#57 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 12:32 PM

Hambil, on Aug 12 2004, 09:43 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 04:22 PM, said:

But Hambil, in much the same way as I view Bush's proposed marriage amendment a function of Christian fanaticism (not Islam fanaticism for crying out loud) why isn't it okay for people to focus in on the particular fanaticism involved in 9-11?

Lil
It's more than okay. I was objecting to applying that specific focus to my anger, and saying "Is this why you're angry? I don't understand? What's the big deal?"
I'm in no way saying "What's the big deal".  BTW, please do your best to avoid putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.  I get tetchy when folk do that.:)

At any rate, and to repeat, I hate Bush.  I just don't see where you think he dropped the ball vis a vis religious fanaticism *with regard to 9-11*.  I guess I'm not being clear or something.  Are you saying that his own religious fanaticism is to blame for 9-11 (or partially to blame) or that the religious right as you call it in America is partially to blame?  If that's what you're saying I don't know.  I do remember reading speaches by Bin Laden and by one of the right wing pundits shortly after 9-11 happened and being appalled at how similar they sounded...

Lil
Posted Image

#58 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 12:51 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 05:30 PM, said:

I'm in no way saying "What's the big deal".  BTW, please do your best to avoid putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.  I get tetchy when folk do that.:)
You were not the only one who kept going back to my comments on the 9/11 speech. I got frustrated. I should have said "this is what I'm hearing" as opposed to "you are saying". Sorry :)

Quote

I just don't see where you think he dropped the ball vis a vis religious fanaticism *with regard to 9-11*.

I do remember reading speaches by Bin Laden and by one of the right wing pundits shortly after 9-11 happened and being appalled at how similar they sounded...
I think you've answered your own question.

Edited by Hambil, 12 August 2004 - 12:52 PM.


#59 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 12:56 PM

I remember some of the "pundits" as well.  And labelling them "right wing" without further identifying them as part of the Christian right is a mistake, I believe...  I remember a good number of people from the Christian right seizing on this as a "religious war."  I remember Jerry Falwell (and some others) blaming America's sinfullness for 9-11.  But...  I also believe that they were fringy elements, and I believe that most Americans, including the President, distanced themselves quite a bit from those statements.

I could be wrong though... I am going strictly from memory...

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#60 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 01:03 PM

No HM you are correct.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, 9/11

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users