Should the Pope apologize??

[Disney MAINEiac]

sure, while he's at it perhaps he should apologize for all the other church sponsered atrosities down through history

 

[LuvDuke]

What is interesting, and relevant to this thread, is that no matter what atrocities they committed, the Sinn Fein IRA has had the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church who have never condemned them.

ford family

Really? I didn't know that. You learn something every day. I would assume that was the least that could've been done. Then again, I also thought the sexual molestation of children was the express ticket to excommunication and hell.

 

[Teejay32]

There was a right way to fight the war on terror and there was the stupid way to fight the war on terror. Bush took the stupid route. He destabilized the Middle East, strengthened Iran's position, weakend Jordan's position, cost this country 2700 lives, 20,000 broken bodies, busted the military, cost the American taxpayer $400,000,000,000, and bogged down America's mobile military in one area and who are now right smack in the middle of a civil war.

You may consider that success, but intelligent people know a disaster when they see it.

no, that's Howard Dean talking about Iraq. Incidentally he keeps bringing up the "real" war on terror and mentioned the words "new direction" about 20 times in five minutes when I saw him recently - you might want to keep an eye on him.

 

[LuvDuke]

http://www.bicom.org.uk/publications/palestinian_affairs/?content_id=1520

The argument that the IRA and Hamas are similarly motivated by religious considerations is gravely flawed. While the IRA claimed to represent the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the group did not seek the establishment of a fundamentalist Catholic state. Neither did the IRA seek or receive theological support from the Catholic Church. On the contrary, throughout the IRA’s campaign, Catholic leaders were unwavering in their denunciation of violence as a political strategy. On his visit to Ireland in 1979, the late Pope John Paul II spoke to a crowd of three hundred thousand near the border with Northern Ireland, pleading, “On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and return to the ways of peace."

For me, there was one very telling in the link you provide and, I believe, it is at the root of our lack of success in Muslim world. Here's the quote:

"In all diplomacy and intelligence, the risk exists of mirror-imaging, assuming that others will operate according to logic as we understand it. "

The fact is, many in the Muslim world don't think like us. Life means something very different. Hell, an Englishman doesn't think like an American and we have a shared heritage and language.

Thomas Friedman, the NYT reporter who spent years in the Middle East, said the mistake we made in Iraq was assuming we wanted the same thing from democracy. We want and value personal freedom. They want and value justice.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

 

[LuvDuke]

no, that's Howard Dean talking about Iraq. Incidentally he keeps bringing up the "real" war on terror and mentioned the words "new direction" about 20 times in five minutes when I saw him recently - you might want to keep an eye on him.

I don't care if it's Howard Dean or Mickey Mouse. We do need a new direction. Doing what we're doing has had the opposite effect of what was intended and no amount of "staying the course" is going to result in anything but more of the same.

 

[Charade]

The conservatives now have to use another phrase to insult Islam.

Suits me. And I'll stop "insulting" them when they stop preaching that Islam is a "religion of peace" as they shoot another nun in the back.

And btw, according to the priest who precided over her funeral said, in her dying breath, she forgave those that killed her. Now lets see if her "brothers" and "sisters" take up arms to avenge her death.

 

[Charade]

There was a right way to fight the war on terror and there was the stupid way to fight the war on terror. Bush took the stupid route. He destabilized the Middle East, strengthened Iran's position, weakend Jordan's position, cost this country 2700 lives, 20,000 broken bodies, busted the military, cost the American taxpayer $400,000,000,000, and bogged down America's mobile military in one area and who are now right smack in the middle of a civil war.

You may consider that success, but intelligent people know a disaster when they see it.

I'm starting to think that a couple of nukes would have been much cheaper.

 

[LuvDuke]

I starting to think that a couple of nukes would have been much cheaper.

You're starting to remind me more and more of my DH everyday.

 

[Charade]

You're starting to remind me more and more of my DH everyday.

 

[eclectics]

I starting to think that a couple of nukes would have been much cheaper.

I guess that answers my question about Kendra's plan.

 

[dcentity2000]

What is interesting, and relevant to this thread, is that no matter what atrocities they committed, the Sinn Fein IRA has had the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church who have never condemned them.

ford family

Now that I don't like the taste of



Rich::

 

[ford family]

http://www.bicom.org.uk/publications/palestinian_affairs/?content_id=1520

The argument that the IRA and Hamas are similarly motivated by religious considerations is gravely flawed. While the IRA claimed to represent the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the group did not seek the establishment of a fundamentalist Catholic state. Neither did the IRA seek or receive theological support from the Catholic Church. On the contrary, throughout the IRA’s campaign, Catholic leaders were unwavering in their denunciation of violence as a political strategy. On his visit to Ireland in 1979, the late Pope John Paul II spoke to a crowd of three hundred thousand near the border with Northern Ireland, pleading, “On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and return to the ways of peace."

No sorry, Sinn Fein strive to merge Ulster with the Republic of Ireland, an existing fundamentalist Catholic state.
Name one Sinn Fein IRA murderer who was excommunicated or even refused the last rites?
When did a Pope denounce Sinn Fein IRA?
JPII was thirty miles from the border when he addressed all sides in the conflict, not just the Catholics, in 1979

Should the Pope apologise to the Muslims for his remarks? No.
But don't expect moderate Muslim leaders to act in holding back extremists if the Roman Catholic Church doesn't do it either.

ford family

 

[Teejay32]

No sorry, Sinn Fein strive to merge Ulster with the Republic of Ireland, an existing fundamentalist Catholic state.
Name one Sinn Fein IRA murderer who was excommunicated or even refused the last rites?
When did a Pope denounce Sinn Fein IRA?
JPII was thirty miles from the border when he addressed all sides in the conflict, not just the Catholics, in 1979

Should the Pope apologise to the Muslims for his remarks? No.
But don't expect moderate Muslim leaders to act in holding back extremists if the Roman Catholic Church doesn't do it either.

ford family

I think Ireland is self-explanatory, and will be as long as it's divided, and its conquering is celebrated widely and annually. People would rather blame the Catholic church than something that obvious, I don't know why, but trust me there is nothing unique to Catholicism there.

 

[bsnyder]

Wow, I can’t believe you are still denying the obvious. Are you really that dense? Let’s map it out, as it’s perfectly clear. Drum attacks Harris for some sloppy reasoning, including harris’ claim that:



Harris provides not even passing support for this assertion, and there is none. As Drum argues, no one on the Left is making that argument. In fact, to the extent that anyone is arguing “root causes”/frustration, that’s from the Right, as part of the polemical pretextual “Transformation” Agenda. Parenthetically, that’s an internal tension in the Right – does “Islamism”, for lack of a better word, arise from lack of democracy or inherent dogmatic deficiencies in Islam?
But as Drum notes, Harris gives away a bit of where he gets his window into te kliberal soul in te next paragraph, arguing:



So there you have it – according to the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, 16% of respondents believe that “the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode” One immediate observation – how does he know that those 16% are political liberals. The Right is far more into conspiracy theories, not the least of which is the VP, who still sees nefarious connections between otherwise unrelated actors. Myrjolie is all yours, and never has a loonier more unbalanced person held more sway with real power, in this case the VP.
More significantly, Drum notes that polling 16% of the public in a particular belief is hardly noteworthy. As he notes, the same poll also found that a far higher percentage believe that the government is withholding evidence of the existence of intelligent life from other planets.

You claim that Drum is lying because, and I quote

First, you’re switching polls – there’s three questions at issue. But even that doesn’t save you, because 38% believe that evidence of intelligent life is being withheld. It’s all there – you can’t keep lying
But you lied about it twice. If anything, Drum understated his point. 16% of respondents believe it is at least somewhat likely that government agents planted explosives in the Twin Towers, while 77% deem it unlikely. In the case of the poll Harris relies upon, 16% believe it “very likely” that evidence of intelligent life is being withheld, and another 22% believe it somewhat likely. It’s worse than I first posted. Sam Harris sees the fact that a combine 16% of the respondents believe the towers were blown as evidence of some deep liberal animus towards Bush but over double that amount believe evidence of intelligent life is being withheld. Over double! And you lied about it TWICE, pretending Drum was wrong when you plainly are. It’s right there – you can’t keep lying about it. (although Cheney can)


Now let’s look at Harris’ supposedly unassailable treatise


First you have to love this data point in support of his main conclusion – letters in response to his general condemnation of all faiths. First, it’s unverifiable. Second, even if it were, it has no empirical significance, and that’s presuming he read all of them and can accurately detect the political leaning of the author. Really, a truly stupid argument to start – liberals respond differently - I know because of letters in response to my book. You’re right about one thing – no way to refute that. I concede now that I am wholly incapable of refuting the content of letters sent to Mr. Harris. But I can counter it with evidence of equal probative significance. Last time I ate alphabet soup, the letters mysteriously formed “Conservatives are wrong” in my soup bowl. Disprove that!!! I too can be an LA Times Columnist and construct arguments that trollers find persuasive

Sam then again references the highly probative value of his letters and reveals that they reveal that “liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with. . .what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.”
So now he is also comparing what devout Muslims believe – they must write him too, since he seems wholly confident of what that is.
He then responds in truisms, stating, as a primary thesis “we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.”
Well fair enough, but what exactly does that mean? Where do we bomb – where do we invade? What do we do?

He then lapses into a nonsequiter, stating



The second sentence does not support the first. He says they are not fringe. OK. How many, what percentage? And on what do you base your conclusion? What, it’s based on numerous studies – we know they are not a fringe because those on the fringe are educated. This is logic? Using his words, “the most radicalized” are educated. So what? That tells you nothing about how much of a threat they are, what their number is. Again, no thinking person finds this persuasive
His next point is ”Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise.”
I think he is arguing that one can both be technically intelligent and deranged. True enough. But individuals don’t construct nuclear bombs – whole national programs do. And they tend not to govern on the 72 virgin principle.
And there’s the straw man Drum took exception to - “And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.”
He certainly slew that straw man with impunity. He then makes his same claim based upon the Scripps poll, which still makes no sense in light of his point that it says anything about political movements as opposed to the fact that about 15% of the population believes in conspiracy theories, whether her or in the Middle East.


Actually, the only political movement making this argument is the Right, albeit substituting political freedom for economic aid. Change the word “economic” to “democratic” and you have right wing agitprop.


Well, since Sam has never identified any liberal that harbors this fantasy that “sufficient economic opportunities” will solve the Islamic “threat”, not sure what value this has. As noted, it is only the Right these days that espouses that we need to solve the “root causes”, a point with some merit, but no t one that anyone that believes that Sam Harris makes sense can argue


Well if there is every reason, care to show a few? Certainly Islam seems to portent a more comprehensive political worldview that Christianity does as presently practiced (although that happy development is not due to Christian theology but to secular enlightenment in governance). But Sam has never shared the basis of his special insight in to the Muslim mind. He has with American liberals – he knows what they think because of letters he receives. But unless he is the busiest pen pal around, hard to say what the basis is of his special knowledge. I know Amy Wellborn posted many links showing that Muslim fur might not be as widespread as we are happily believing
But here is his thesis

This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.”
Those Muslims – they’re just into such solidarity. Even if the fringes are fringe, everyone supports them.
Sure, we see that. Look at the unity in Iraq between Shia and Sunni, the unified support for Iran from Saudi Arabia. It’s there – everyone can see it




Well Spencer Ackerman shows why the term is damaging at http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=32929


Yep, that’s right – the same domestic Muslims who have not been radicalized find it offensive, and I would too if I were Muslim



He actually flips the argument here. I don’t know any significant amount of liberals who claim pure equivalency with the worst of those we fight. But the Right flips that, especially in the torture debate and the use of force debate against civilians, to the argument that anything that is not as bad as the worse of our enemies is OK. So we torture indiscriminately – Sadaam was worse. A speaking of the “most basic more distinctions’ torture and due discrimination against killing civilians are about the highest, and no Administration in recent memory to erode this nation’s moral authorities, built over decades. Ask Colin Powell.


I’ll concede he has a small point here – many liberals are viscerally anti-Israel in ways I don’t understand. But in the last dustup I found myself unable to fully support Israel due to some of their seemingly cavalier treatment of noncombatants


So now he has a number – “tens of millions” – he is a busy pen pal! But again, what exactly does that mean – do we preemptively attack all Muslims to make sure we get the tens of millions? I agree that nuclear proliferation is upon us, and I wish it were not so, but I’m not certain it’s avoidable. And that is a key difference – Bush-types seem to believe that any undesirable development in the world can be avoided with sufficient resolve. It is a matter of will, and force, and we will have no rivals, no enemies, to quote the hold working paper - take them out now. Louis/Kendra/Angie/Andy loves to claim the mantle of history, but it is those that make the ridiculous claim that the world is ours to mold via destructive shaping. That was silly claim before, but is preposterous now. Hasn’t the debacle that is Iraq shown that we cannot remake the world to our liking?

And talk about the “most basic moral distinctions”, whatever happened to the presumption against war, that it should be a last report. During the debate in the runup to Iraq, Krauthammer or someone like him actually argued that the Democrats had not come up with any good reason NOT to go to war!! That’s perverse, and evil. War should be a last resort, and should only be undertaken if we truly believe it will make things better, understanding that conflict always releases unforeseen forces. Iraq is the paradigmatic example.

But even if we determine it necessary to go to war against Iran or Islam in general, or whatever ya’ll actually need to release the need, the simple fact remains that we have demonstrably incompetent leadership in place. So war must be unavoidable to be justified, because we know that this crew will screw it up. I know, I know, that’s “Bush hatred”, which is kind of like arguing that criticism of the Bucs’ start this season is irrational “Simms hated”. Bush has been the Chris Simms of CinCs so far, except he has the talent edge. Simms has throw 6 interceptions in two games in which we have scored three points, but hey, anyone who thinks him ineffective must be filled with “Simms hatred.” And it’s even worse. While Chris may have confidence problems, George is the opposite- he is the quarterback who is 0-2 with 6 interceptions but thinks he is doing great and should change nothing


Yes, and we were the only people hard headed enough to believe Iraq had to be invaded. And we knew the world would follow. There is no doubt we see threats that others do not. And 16% of people believe the towers were blown.
That’s enough on Sam. His points were stupid, which is obviously why they appeal to the stupid

If you're finished throwing up all the smoke and mirrors, perhaps you (or Kevin) would like to take a stab at the main point of his piece (and BTW, I don't think he's a columnist for the LAT). His main point was directed at you, not me. To wit:

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

He's on your side. He's no Bush apologist. This has been your party's BIG problem since that horrible September morning five years ago. You can ignore it, and avoid talking about it, and scream and rant and rave about Bu****ler and the Evil Dr. Cheney. You can nominate a John Kerry, hoping that his Vet status will paper over the fact that he thinks we can reduce terrorism to a "nuisance" - like organized crime. You can demphasize 9/11 commemorations because they also might remind people of "scary things" and your blogs can spill 1000 times more bandwidth in outrage over a movie that dares to paint the Clinton Administration in a less-than-flattering light and yet write almost nothing about Muslims shooting nuns in the back as a reaction to the Pope's remarks or worldwide violence in reaction to those Danish cartoons (maybe if we don't write about it, people won't notice?). You can keep listening to the echo chamber that tells you that your Ned Lamont wing is a massive, powerful majority, on the verge of sweeping into power on a landslide. You can continue to "incite to frothing" and cling to a strategy of Bush is Evil, So Just Vote for Us, Stupid. You can continue to be the party that embraces Michael Moore and his wild conspiracy theories.

Or you could be responsible, and encourage some sane spokesman in your party to finally say to the base: No, the Bush administration was not secretly behind 9/11. No, we’re not fighting for oil, no, the media is not all secretly controlled by Karl Rove, yes, al Qaeda is real, yes, we need a serious plan to fight them, and that means something beyond more money for port security and "energy independence" (whatever that means!).

 

[eclectics]

You can continue to "incite to frothing" and cling to a strategy of Bush is Evil, So Just Vote for Us, Stupid. You can continue to be the party that embraces Michael Moore and his wild conspiracy theories.

Or you could be responsible, and encourage some sane spokesman in your party to finally say to the base: No, the Bush administration was not secretly behind 9/11. No, we’re not fighting for oil, no, the media is not all secretly controlled by Karl Rove, yes, al Qaeda is real, yes, we need a serious plan to fight them, and that means something beyond more money for port security and "energy independence" (whatever that means!).

Disappointing to hear you actually believe a lot of us think that way.

 

[bsnyder]

Disappointing to hear you actually believe a lot of us think that way.

Not sure where you got that from? I wasn't addressing any particular individual here on the DIS - even though the way we all post sometimes makes it seem that way.

But a not-insignificant portion of the Dem party does think that way. Why isn't that a concern?

 

[Charade]

But a not-insignificant portion of the Dem party does think that way. Why isn't that a concern?

Just heard on the radio today. A recent poll asked if Iran should have nukes. Almost 90 precent of Republicans said no and about 60 precent of Democrats said no. Asked it diplomatic negotiations would work. The majority of Dems and Republicans said no. Asked if there should be military action against Iran. About 1/2 the Republicans said yes, while only 1/4 of the Dems said no.

Most Dems said that Iran shouldn't have nukes, most said diplomacy probably wouldn't work and most said no to military action. So what should be done?

(disclaimer, these numbers are from memory as I couldn't find the poll online. Margin of error: )

 

[Saxsoon]

sure, while he's at it perhaps he should apologize for all the other church sponsered atrosities down through history

JPII beat him to it.

 

[eclectics]

Not sure where you got that from? I wasn't addressing any particular individual here on the DIS - even though the way we all post sometimes makes it seem that way.

But a not-insignificant portion of the Dem party does think that way. Why isn't that a concern?

"Us" meaning Democrats in general. I would like to see a legitimate non partisan poll that suggests a "not-insignificant" number of Democrats believe 9/11 was a Bush sponsored conspiracy, Al Qaeda is not real, and Karl Rove "runs" the media. Produce one and then we'll discuss.

 

[bsnyder]

Just heard on the radio today. A recent poll asked if Iran should have nukes. Almost 90 precent of Republicans said no and about 60 precent of Democrats said no. Asked it diplomatic negotiations would work. The majority of Dems and Republicans said no. Asked if there should be military action against Iran. About 1/2 the Republicans said yes, while only 1/4 of the Dems said no.

Most Dems said that Iran shouldn't have nukes, most said diplomacy probably wouldn't work and most said no to military action. So what should be done?

(disclaimer, these numbers are from memory as I couldn't find the poll online. Margin of error: )

I find it astounding that 40% of Democrats think it's okay if Iran has nukes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore...