Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt was 12 degrees and icy in Des Moines Saturday when (according to the campaign), over 18,500 people attended a Barack Obama rally with Oprah Winfrey.
If they fill the arena in Manchester, Sunday, the O team will have attracted as many as Justin Timberlake or -- gasp -- Neil Diamond. The Union Leader's already predicting "one of the largest events in New Hampshire primary history."
Some want to give Winfrey all the credit: "There's that awe factor," a spokesman for the venue told the Union Leader. "It's Oprah, one of richest people in the world, coming to Manchester."
There are interesting reasons why Obama/Winfrey provoke special attention, but before the media make this campaign all about one very wealthy woman, it's worth remembering that (as I've said before) what makes Obama's campaign interesting is the organizing.
Howard Dean wanted a 50 State Strategy; Obama appears to have one. His campaign has offices in Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota and three in Alabama. Salt Lake City had its grand opening Saturday.
The campaign's New Media Director, Joe Rospars is a Deaniac. He worked for Dean from '03 to 07. He's been spreading the word to blog readers about the role Obama's supporters are playing in Congressional races in Ohio and next week in Virginia's first district.
Movement-building may not be as ooh and ahh worthy to the media as Oprah but it's what a whole lot of frustrated Dems are looking for. Like this Kossack "He is building a genuine grass-roots & net-roots infrastructure that will benefit progressives for years and decades to come."
And just fyi: not only is Obama gaining ground in New Hampshire. This past week, he won a Democratic Party straw poll in Kansas.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Dean too is in a fight for his life (and his philosophy).
Almost no doubt that if Hillary gets the nomination, and Presidency...she'll oust Howard Dean and put one of HER people in. And the "50 state strategy" will be gutted for the old "targetted states strategy".
Hillary wins...Dean loses.
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2007 @ 9:45pm
Obama does indeed have a "real" 50-state deep grass-roots organization, and these "boots-on-the-ground" campaign force is far better positioned than Hillary's "TV ad only" campaign in these states. Neighbors want to hear from neighbors considering the appeal of candidates, and that personal touch is far superior to carefully crafted, calculated messages with TV ads.
Obama has a strong and deep beginning, middle, and end game, so Hillary is in for a rough ride!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/08/2007 @ 11:29pm
I wonder if HRC will have the courage to ask Barbara Streisand to go beyond just endorsing her but to campaign for her? Clinton/Streisand vs. Obama/Oprah!!!
Posted by Happy at 12/08/2007 @ 11:33pm
In a battle where there can be no winner, who will win?
Posted by Tzimisce at 12/09/2007 @ 12:26am
Dean has it right though, how many elections did the targeted state strategy win? And 2006 saw some victories for the every state strategy. But never doubt the Democratic party to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Posted by Tzimisce at 12/09/2007 @ 12:28am
Lotta blanks, must be RESE.
Good thing he's going to "shut up" in less than 4 months.
Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 09:02am
I am not a MAN----Posted by RESE 12/09/2007 @ 09:13am
Damn, there goes my view of the inherent superiority of women.
Sorry, ma'am. From now on, I'll refer to you as that female NUT!
Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 10:09am
Looking for a candidate who supports impeachment AND defending the Constitution? Only one: Dennis Kucinich. Support him, this Sat Dec. 15 -- donate @ Dennis4President.com
Sat Dec. 15: anniversary of the day the Bill of Rights first went into effect. Carpe diem, seize that day, before we lose all those rights entirely.
Posted by sloper at 12/09/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by ZERO 12/09/2007 @ 12:47pm
actually, the iraqis in syria are the poorest of the lot. that's why some have gone back to iraq -- no money left. surge, hah!
those in the upper-class go to gulf states.
those in the middle go to jordan.
how many go to the u.s.?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2007 @ 1:48pm
Groan.
Lotta blanks, must be RESE.
Good thing he's going to "shut up" in less than 4 months.
Posted by MASK 12/09/2007 @ 09:02am
Wow! Are you omniscient?
I am not a MAN----Posted by RESE 12/09/2007 @ 09:13am
Posted by MASK 12/09/2007 @ 10:09am
....or just obnoxious?
Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2007 @ 2:38pm
Scarier than all of the sympotoms of fascism alluded to above is the Orwellian rise of the handsome deceiver whose pop-culture appeal makes everyone - even those who consider themselves dissenters - moan in constent.
As Alexander Cockburn described in his piece "Senator Slither":
It's depressing to think that we'll have to endure Obamaspeak for months, if not years to come: a pulp of boosterism about the American dream, interspersed with homilies about "putting factionalism and party divisions behind us and moving on". I used to think Senator Joe Lieberman was the man whose words I'd least like to be force fed top volume if I was chained next to a loudspeaker in Camp Gitmo, but I think Obama, who picked Lieberman as his mentor when he first entered the US Senate, is worse. I've never heard a politician so desperate not to offend conventional elite opinion while pretending to be fearless and forthright.
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12092006.html [counterpunch.com]
Posted by ccorbell at 12/09/2007 @ 4:54pm
Bad typing - I meant "moan in consent". Though that phrase was probably not apt anyway - the sheep are actually cheering. ;-)
Posted by ccorbell at 12/09/2007 @ 4:56pm
Posted by RESE 12/09/2007 @ 4:28pm
No, Ms RESE....I think anybody who thinks the world is run by Jesuits is a nut.
I think anybody who, when asked several months back, said that "by April, we'll be at war with Iran, in martial law, and 'openents' locked up in concentration camps"...and added (of their own volition) that "If it doesn't happen, I'll shut up"...
and DOESN'T "shut up" by April...is a bald-faced liar AND a nut.
Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 5:24pm
Posted by CCORBELL 12/09/2007 @ 4:54pm
It's about statesmanship and authenticity, something this country has not had in a president for quite some time.
We already de-bunked your "Obama is a Lieberman booster" BS with quotes from Obama urging Democrats to support Ned Lamont OVER Lieberman in the general election, and Obama NOT voting for Kyl-Lieberman like Hillary did.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/09/2007 @ 5:26pm
Posted by CCORBELL 12/09/2007 @ 4:54pm
CCORBELL...is it just a coincidence that you switched from an opinion of Obama that was 'nice young man, but inexperienced' to...'he's dangerous and you're selling out your country if you support him'...
in DIRECTION correllation to him pulling ahead of Hillary in Iowa???
Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 5:26pm
Posted by MASK 12/09/2007 @ 5:26pm
Does correlation equal causation?
Posted by METTEYYA 12/09/2007 @ 5:26pm
What exactly do you find authentic about Obama? And statesmanship? He talks a good game - but that doesn't make one a statesman.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2007 @ 5:38pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/09/2007 @ 5:38pm
I'm no Obama fan...but not against him either.
CCORBELL just showing her robotic nature....maybe just as METTEYA is. (But he didn't switch opinions on Hillary.)
Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 5:42pm
Scarier than all of the symptoms of fascism alluded to above is the Orwellian rise of the handsome deceiver.....
~Sí Corbell, "Hillary's Yes-Man"
Glad to see you've followed the trail of breadcrumbs I've left you to such sites as ZNet and Counterpunch, Sí Corbell.
Now, all you've gotta do is clear your cluttered mind to make room for the fact that Hillary is no better than Barack, and in fact would likely be a much poorer president. She has already displayed a marked propensity to pound her chest to prove her "toughness". And she's a cold, calculating, ice queen.
Can't see it? Just follow the same trail of truth you used to unveil Obama.
You shouldn't need a wizard to tell you what you already know in your heart.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 5:45pm
Mett,
Statesmanship and Authenticity? Not policy? Not who gives them money? Not who advises them?
So what is important is exactly those features that a good PR person can make people believe the candidate has? How far removed is judging a candidate on this basis from judging them the way that Newsweek (I think it was newsweek, might have been Time) did when they said on their cover of Romney that he 'looks presidential'? Obama seems and speaks like he will be a good president, so we vote for him? I would take a candidate who seems like a smarmy ass but who is not beholden to corporate donors any day over a candidate who has authenticity and statesmanship but takes his marching orders from Wall Street. (in other words, I support Edwards)
And what Obama said in the general election is not important. What is important is what he said in the primaries, when supporting Lamont was not the position of the democratic elite, when it was a tough choice. I cannot remember if you put a quote from the primaries up.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/09/2007 @ 6:42pm
No one's debunked any of my concerns about Barack on this forum because nobody's addressed them. Barack -chose- Lieberman as his mentor (even though he then soft-pedalled that and pretended Joe was just assigned to him, which Joe kindly corrected, saying how honored he was that Obama requested him - oops). What, this "progressive" couldn't think of anyone else in the Senate who matched his views or would serve as a good mentor? Barack clearly believes that party divisions should end, that's his message of "unity". Somehow though the chips always fall more to the right than to the left, and he's willing to sacrifice the most important positions of many traditional Democrats (not just progressives).
Though I'm in many ways a moderate I tend to have a bit more respect than Obama has for the progressives of the 60's and the generations of Democrats and what they accomplished in the last century.
Hillary is better than Barack because
1) She will not deconstruct Democratic Party institutions only to rebuild them even -further- to the right, as he well.
2) She will apply her methodology of bringing all sides to the table but on the most important issues will hold the party line and preserve the Democratic liberal identity (Hillary can be considered slightly to the left of Bill if you look at her actual Senate record and policy proposals).
3) She will be able to build a functioning government based on experience which will address the terrible messes of Bush/Cheney, rather than another experimental opportunist government that has no loyalty to anyone but its own agenda.
4) Hillary has shown herself in this campaign far more willing to make her compromise positions transparent (that's why others have been able to attack her so readily); she may make a compromise you don't like but she'll stand by it and explain her rationale. Obama, in comparison, misleads and obscures his positions with vapid and often nearly Orwellian slogans; he is as hawkish as her but pretends to be the candidate of peace, and to the right of her but pretends to be a progressive.
If I vote for a centrist Democrat who sometimes compromises with the GOP and big-corporate agendas, I will at least vote for one who is honest about that fact and loyal to the party base, not this slick opportunist Obama who will gamble with the highest office in the land to feed his own global-corporation-centered, Bloomberg/Lieberaman-style vision. He'd leave the party in a second if it suited him and spin it as a sign of his own "integrity."
No one on this board has ever had the guts to address directly the fact that Obama's voting record in the Senate goes with the GOP, against progressive Democrats, more often than Hillary's voting record. And that -includes- her lifetime votes, covering the very GOP-favorable political climate of 2001-2003 when Obama wasn't in the Senate (and in more honest moments he freely admitted that he didn't know whether or not he would have voted against war authorization). If you just look at her record vs. Obama's since Obama's been in office, he's that much further right.
In sum if you have progressive political differences with Hillary they should also apply at least as much to Obama; but the extreme mismatch of rhetoric with actual record applies only to Obama, and the stated program of dissolving the distinction between Democrat and Republican is asserted only by Obama.
That said, I will support (and have made donations to) Edwards and Kucinich as well, and applaud those who support the December 15 DJK donation date.
Obama is acceptable only to those who really believe that the Republican and Democratic parties should meld into one - and fools who don't realize that's his agenda.
Posted by ccorbell at 12/09/2007 @ 6:57pm
I would take a candidate who seems like a smarmy ass but who is not beholden to corporate donors any day over a candidate who has authenticity and statesmanship but takes his marching orders from Wall Street. (in other words, I support Edwards)
~Dentedpat
Cheers to that.
That's similar to arguments I've made here as well, stating that our personal opinions of the candidates are less important than the substance of their messages.
In the case of John Edwards, I read him as a genuinely heartfelt human being with the best of intentions for the nation as a whole if elected president. And he's obviously highly intelligent --a huge breath of fresh air after the travesty of our Rummy, Crummy and Dummy administration (i.e. Rumsfeld, Dick and Dubya).
But I urge the unconvinced to see for themselves here.
To the hardened skeptics such as Zero, "The Cynical Cypher", I reiterate the fact that our personal views are not the important factor, the message is.
If you believe that the whole performance is a complete and total charade on the part of John Edwards, then I suppose I can only throw my hands up, shrug and say, "Oh well, I tried my best to lead the horses to some good clean water. Let's hope the water in our future isn't black."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 8:01pm
No one on this board has ever had the guts to address directly the fact that Obama's voting record in the Senate goes with the GOP, against progressive Democrats, more often than Hillary's voting record.
CCorbel, nothing could be further from the truth. Obama supports disclosing the source and recipient of pork-barrel earmarks, whereas "Mama Warbucks" (Google this) Clinton opposed disclosing the source and recipient, and was the "source" of $160 billion dollars in pork-barrel earmarks for defense contractors and will have to deliver for them as president with more unnecessary wars, which explains her vote FOR Kyl-Lieberman that put us on a path to war with Iran. Barak did not vote for this and opposed it in a written statement before the vote.
Hillary can't credibly claim to be interested in change in government ethics and undue influence when she votes the defense lobby and AIPAC's way with her vote FOR Kyl-Lieberman, and her opposition to full disclosure of earmarks for special interest groups proves that she wants to continue the "pay to play" culture in Washington.
Hillary sees government and the world much like George Bush, in which those who "pay to play" get special access and government attention while the average taxpayer gets the shaft by being forced to support these pet Washington insider projects. Hillary's experience in Washington amounts to zilch if all she did was cozy up to defense contractors and HMOs to fund her presidential ambitions.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/09/2007 @ 8:50pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/09/2007 @ 5:45pm
yeah!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2007 @ 9:10pm
Re: It's not only Oprah. Boy, you could feel how desperately Rove and GOP want Mr. Obama to win the Dem campaign because they know he could never win the general election.
Posted by HelenDAO at 12/09/2007 @ 9:29pm
Posted by METTEYYA 12/09/2007 @ 8:50pm
Your position remains absurd.
You don't make a point by saying a candidate "can't credibly claim" something that the candidate hasn't claimed. I don't recall Hillary making any claim one way or another regarding AIPAC.
Are you operating under the illusion that Obama is somehow opposed to AIPAC or not influnced by it? Have you ever bothered to google "Obama AIPAC"? Man I'm getting tired of lazy pop-pol cheerleaders who don't do their own homework.
Obama Rebuffs Soros [nysun.com]
Obama's AIPAC Speech [scribd.com]
The Obama AIPAC Pander [agonist.org]
Obviously AIPAC is not the ultimate litmus test with me - if it was, I couldn't support Hillary or Edwards. If AIPAC really bothers you (it must since you keep bringing it up) why on earth would you embrace Joe Lieberman's protegé? Why don't you have the guts to throw your support behind Kucinich if you really want substantial change without such influences rather than a windowless seat on the sham Obama train? Do you really think that, among candidates A, B, and C who have the same position, you should pick the one who lies to you?
Dissolving the differences between Democratic and Republican parties in the way Obama proposes can only help the "non-partisan" global corporate interests and, yes, also help further pro-Israel, pro-military interests. There may not be as much check-and-balance between parties as we'd like but at least there's a little; Obama would throw that away and in doing so open the door for more profound unaccountability than we've ever seen. After all, at least we still -had- an alternative to sweep in, in 2006 (even if they didn't deliver as much as we've hoped).
Why would anyone assume that making less of a distinction in philosophy and policy between the two parties would lead to a more fair, more progressive world? But that is precisely Barack Obama's stated objective, it's the core of his post-baby-boomer message.
I ask these questions not so much for answers (you don't give them) as to just give you a path out of your self-deception, take it if you will. Unless you're a paid Obama staffer, an employee of Goldman/Sachs or a very clever right-winger there is no rational basis for your position.
Posted by ccorbell at 12/09/2007 @ 9:33pm
Rather ingenious, this move...
"Obama is acceptable only to those who really believe that the Republican and Democratic parties should meld into one - and fools who don't realize that's his agenda."-----Posted by CCORBELL 12/09/2007 @ 6:57pm
THE prime charge against Her Majesty....yet now it's OBAMA who'll do that and be a "Republican-lite".
Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 9:43pm
And she's a cold, calculating, ice queen. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/09/2007 @ 8:01pm
OK, it's time people started getting called out on this crap.
That's a misogynist label, B_KOOL_66. If you want to call Hillary Clinton a sell-out or a jerk or whatever more extreme dismissive label you like fine, but there's a real line crossed when you pick specifically feminine epithets to belittle any woman, let alone United States Senator.
There is no comparable male-specific bash you can use for any other candidate in the race; using gender-biased hate-speech is every bit as bad as using any other kind of prejudiced slur.
People jumped all over me on this forum just for using Obama's full legal name (though I doubt seriously that he minds; I suspect he is proud of his full name, if not, being a politician, he would have changed it). But the sick game, all too readily played, of either trash-talking or denying Senator Clinton's femininity is an immoral and hateful approach to political discourse which no progressive or decent person should tolerate or condone.
Vote for whom you want, but shame on you for this comment.
Posted by ccorbell at 12/09/2007 @ 9:46pm
Re: It's Oprah. So the Dem ticket will be Obama-Oprah? Only the dumbest of the dumbs would go for that.
Posted by HelenDAO at 12/09/2007 @ 11:24pm
This is a rather long response to CCORBELL. I am not Obama supporter, I write this to express my ongoing bafflement at CC's contention that Clinton is more progressive than Obama, or rather, the better choice for progressives.
1) She will not deconstruct Democratic Party institutions only to rebuild them even -further- to the right, as he well.
I am not sure what you mean by this, perhaps you have talked about it elsewhere (I confess I don't read all the blog entries for the Nation, and I don't always read the comments on those I do read.) What institutions are you talking about? The fundraising mechanisms? It seems to me that all the rightward shift one could cause happened in the 90's under Clinton's DNC head. The campaign committees for the House and Senate? With Rahm and Chuck in charge of those I again can't see how much more rightwing they can get and still plausibly call themselves democratic. The think-tanks most closely associated with the party (PPI and Center for American Progress) are either right wing or centrist. It might be that I have too restricted a view of what 'Democratic Institutions' covers. But the way I see it the reason why you are right that Clinton won't make the institutions more right-wing, and wrong that Obama will, is that this has already been done by Bill Clinton, or those in his wing of the party.
2) She will apply her methodology of bringing all sides to the table but on the most important issues will hold the party line and preserve the Democratic liberal identity (Hillary can be considered slightly to the left of Bill if you look at her actual Senate record and policy proposals).
I guess the key here is on what you mean by 'important issues'. It seems to me that on the most important issues (making the tax code more progressive, making low unemployment the central goal of economic policy, rolling back free trade deals that lead to regressive economic trends, poverty reduction, the promotion of peace and democracy in foreign policy) the democratic party is not unified and that is because there is a significant part of the party that is to the right of what liberalism enjoins. (I am taking John Rawls to be the paradigm liberal here. I say this because 'liberal' is a word that causes much confusion.) It seems to me that the Clintons have been the leader of that part of the party for a long time.
3) She will be able to build a functioning government based on experience which will address the terrible messes of Bush/Cheney, rather than another experimental opportunist government that has no loyalty to anyone but its own agenda.
This criticism is odd. You don't say who Clinton would be loyal to but critisize Obama for being only loyal to his own agenda (I think Obama is the target here anyway). But if Obama has the agenda he has because he thinks it helps people the most, then isn't loyalty to one's own agenda just another way of being loyal to the people? Anyway the experience talking point seems to me to evince a misunderstanding of what has been wrong with the Bush administration. Experience is supposed to be important because it leads to competency. When Clinton critisizes Republicans it is mostly on issues of competency. Competency is not about what final ends you have, but how you reach them. Having issues of experience and competency as your major selling points suggests that you don't have a problem with the overall goals of your opponent. But the problem with Bush is his goals, not how well he did pursuing them. Bush's wing of the party wants to gut social programs by creating structural deficits, to increase American power by undercutting international institutions and projecting American military power, and remove all restrictions and obstacles on large corporations monopolizing markets. If a candidate's main problem with the republicans is how efficiently they do these things, then that candidate is evil. In fact the guiding principle of the DLC seems to be that final ends are revisable on the basis of popular opinion, and that all that matters is whether the candidate can get things done. This has always struck me as simply irrational. If you don't care about where you are going, why do you care to get there quickly?
4) Hillary has shown herself in this campaign far more willing to make her compromise positions transparent (that's why others have been able to attack her so readily); she may make a compromise you don't like but she'll stand by it and explain her rationale. Obama, in comparison, misleads and obscures his positions with vapid and often nearly Orwellian slogans; he is as hawkish as her but pretends to be the candidate of peace, and to the right of her but pretends to be a progressive.
I was with you until the last two phrases. There is no sense in which Obama is as hawkish as Clinton. This is absurd. He has come out as against using nuclear weapons, he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and he brings troops home quicker. Foreign policy is one of the few places where he seems to be as progressive as he pretends to be.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/10/2007 @ 12:49am
And she's a cold, calculating, ice queen. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/09/2007 @ 8:01pm
OK, it's time people started getting called out on this crap.
Vote for whom you want, but shame on you for this comment.
Posted by CCORBELL 12/09/2007 @ 9:46pm
you're right.
he should have called her a calculating, greedy, self-interested, power-hungry, twelve-faced hypocrite.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 09:38am
Posted by CCORBELL 12/09/2007 @ 9:33pm
OK, CCorbel, Obama and I DISAGREE on this one. The only way to reach a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and Israel is if ALL of the interested parties are at the bargaining table. Hamas, as the winner of of free and fair democratic election, deserves a seat at the table regardless of its ant-Israel rhetoric. I think if the question is re-framed as "Do you recognize Israel's right to exist in the pre-'67 borders or the borders defined by the UN when we created the state of Israel and the state of Palestine back in '48?", Hamas would answer, yes. But no, they cannot accept Israel's continued settlement efforts on Palestinian land, and Israel has no right to exist on this land.
On being an AIPAC booster, the moment of truth came with Kyl-Lieberman, an AIPAC initiative, and what did we see? Hillary votes for it, and Obama did not for it.
Obama is also for getting ALL nations, including Israel, to sign and abide by the Nuclear-Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). AIPAC wants an "Israel exemption" from this treaty, whereas Obama has been firm that there are no exemptions. Since it is Israeli nukes that are fueling desires of Isreal's neighbors to develop nukes to deter Israeli aggression, forcing Israel to sign the NPT as a condition of receiving any more US foreign aid or weapons makes the most sense.
Hillary wants to give AIPAC a blank check to do whatever they want. She doesn't have the courage to stand up to influential lobbying groups, and her vote on Kyl-Lieberman demonstrates this.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 10:13am
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/10/2007 @ 12:49am
There is no sense in which Obama is as hawkish as Clinton.
Isn't Obama's postion that if actionable intelligence exists on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan then U.S. strikes will follow, regardless of cooperation from Islamabad? I don't think Clinton has said anything remotely this hawkish.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2007 @ 12:12pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 12:12pm
You are correct, Hillary is pushing Bush/Cheney's approach of giving Bin Laden a pass while keeping our troops in Iraq and looking for other countries to invade like Iran.
If we are serious about getting the terrorists who caused 9/11, then Iraq and Iran are the wrong targets, and getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan appears to be the correct approach.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 12:38pm
Posted by METTEYYA 12/10/2007 @ 12:38pm
If we are serious about getting the terrorists who caused 9/11...
The correct approach would be to stop engaging in U.S. exceptionalism that believes it can bomb anywhere in the world - for any reason it sees fit. This is what created Osama bin Laden. This is what will create his successor if we were to capture or kill him.
The phrase, "For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, only one strikes at the root," has never been more appropriate as in our war of terror.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2007 @ 12:49pm
The phrase, "For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, only one strikes at the root," has never been more appropriate as in our war of terror.
I am with you on this one. Breaking our addiction to oil is the first step at getting at this root, as this will allow us the freedom to change our policy toward Saudi Arabia, which was the principle reason Bin Laden cited for the 9/11 attacks.
We have the technology right now to produce nice looking electric cars that go 350 miles on a charge and can be re-charged in 10 minutes (e.g., Zap-x,Tesla, Electrum Spyder) and we have the solar (Fist Solar) and battery (EEStor ultracaps) technology to have 100% green power plants. We need the right leadership at the top to mobilize resources behind a new push for American technology and innovation that gets us out of this Middle East mess for good.
Obama clearly understands this imperative and is getting greener in his policy every day. There is even talk that he would appoint Al Gore to a new cabinet level position as Green Energy Czar, and this is the high profile we need to get to real oil independence in the next 10 years.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 1:05pm
SRJenkins,
Thanks for that point, I had forgotten about that. I am not sure that this difference makes Obama more hawkish necessarily. Certainly Clinton would make strikes in countries we are not friendly with, unless there are more severe differences between her and Bill on foriegn policy than we have been led to believe. It seems to me the difference between Obama and Clinton on this one is just that he is willing to do the same to Pakistan. On the one hand it is nice to see someone not giving special treatment to a dictator just because we share enemies, and on the other it strikes me as extremely unwise to inflame anti-Western opinion in Pakistan at this juncture (the unstable political situation plus the nukes). For Obama's position to be the right one the high value targets would have to be extremely high value, and I am not sure there is any terrorist target important enough to take risks with Pakistans nuclear arsenal (Bin Laden before the Afghan invasion might have had that kind of value. He certainly doesn't now, after all the decentralization and splintering that has occured with Al Qaeda.). I think this is a case where Obama's position is less wise, not more hawkish.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/10/2007 @ 1:23pm
I think if the question is re-framed as "Do you recognize Israel's right to exist in the pre-'67 borders or the borders defined by the UN when we created the state of Israel and the state of Palestine back in '48?", Hamas would answer, yes.
Certainly Fatah would. And there are certainly factions within Hamas that would answer in the affirmative. But I don't think it is at all clear that Hamas as a whole would. Hamas is like the Republican party. There are some very misguided decieved people mixed in with genuinely evil murderous people, and the misguided people are not the one's in control. Besides the issue of Israel's existence is no longer a real issue (it is of symbolic importance I guess). There is no state, terrorist group or combination thereof in the middle east with the ability to cause Israel not to exist. A concerted push to do so would prompt Israel to use all tools at their disposal to resist, and we haven't seen Israel go all out in decades. They have been getting stronger while everyone else (except Saudi Arabia which can't afford to piss off AIPAC, and Iran which cannot really project its power that far) has been getting weaker.
The issue is whether Israel's enemies and opponents recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. If you listen carefully to Israeli spokesman and leaders over the last few years you will always here them add 'as a Jewish state' to the old formula. Given demographic facts recognition of Israel as a Jewish state entails accepting either dropping the demand for right of return, or accepting something like Jim Crow for Arabs in Israel. It means either accepting the terrible economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza, because of all the people living in refugee camps, or accepting second class citizenship. Israel is not fighting for its right to exist, it is fighting for the right to keep Arabs either a minority or at least of political and social insignificance in Israel itself.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/10/2007 @ 1:39pm
The correct approach would be to stop engaging in U.S. exceptionalism that believes it can bomb anywhere in the world - for any reason it sees fit. This is what created Osama bin Laden. This is what will create his successor if we were to capture or kill him.
The phrase, "For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, only one strikes at the root," has never been more appropriate as in our war of terror.
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 12:49pm
SRJ,
Your comments reflect the fatal shortcoming in leftist thought towards Islam. Try actually reading the entire Qu'ran, the Sunnah, the Hadith. Read the writings of the leading Muslim clerics in the 20th Century. They are consistent in their requirement for war against all who do not submit to Allah and Islam.
This predates the US by over a 1000 years. So how did supposed US imperialism shape their writings? The modern world Islamic conquest is made by 1)the rise of modern jihad as a recovery to the loss of the Caliphate earlier in the 20th Century, 2)the ability to fund this movement by oil rich Islamic nations, 3)the overthrow of Iran by the Mullahs in 1979 which provided the key platform for worldwide jihad.
I still suggest that you and others read Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades". Take the challenge he has issued to CAIR and others to show where he is incorrect. Muslims have yet to be able to do so. Liberals who maintain that somehow US imperialism fueled this jihadist movement ignore history and Islam itself.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 2:47pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 2:47pm
So we ignore pretty much a ton of the Old Testament, right?
Exodus 15:3-- The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 23:27-- I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.
Exodus 32:27-- And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Numbers 21:35-- So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 3:34pm
BTW, I would recommend Karen Armstrong's "Battle for God"...
and read the history of why so many Jews fled the "loving embrace" of the re-conquista Spanish Christians....to the safer ISLAMIC countries!
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 3:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 2:47pm
Try reading 2:256 of the Quran. "Let there be no compulsion in religion for truth clearly stands out from falsehood."
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/661/
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 3:45pm
Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 3:34pm
The repeated straw man argument. Show me one place in the NT where Christians are told to conquer other nations by war.
In fact, Jesus declared that His kingdom was not of this world. There is no scriptural justification for Christians to conquer nations for Christ. Those who have done so have not done so because the Bible or Christ has commanded it but out of their own greed or lust for power.
Again, it seems like you Mask and the leftists are just as afraid of the truth in books like Mr Spencer's so much so that you will not actually read for yourselves.
Then there are those like Metteya who dutifully spout the talking points of terrorist organizations like CAIR while ignoring that the vast majority of Qu'ranic text is about war and conquest of those who do not submit to Islam/Allah. The Qu'ran is a book of war and any who deny it are either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 4:00pm
The repeated straw man argument. Show me one place in the NT where Christians are told to conquer other nations by war.---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 4:00pm
Okay, LVLIB, show me one post where you say that "God is different from the Old Testament to the New" or that what was written in the OT ...isn't 'the Truth'.
Can't be both, Larry. Either the OT is useless, but then that means that the "Word of God" isn't the "Word of God" until the Apostles started writing it.
Or the God of the OT is "eternal" and "unchangeable"...and a bloodthirsty maniac for wars and death.
So...which is it? OT chroniclers wrong or God makes Patton look like a Quaker?
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 2:47pm
What does the Bible say regarding retaliation and the treatment of enemies? Even if what you say were true, what then is the appropriate Christian response?
I want to also direct your attention to the fact that I was responding to a claim that we had the "wrong targets" and should be focused on those behind the 9/11 attacks - Osama Bin Laden. If we limit the discussion of Osama Bin Laden and others involved in 9/11 as METTEYYA did, then we have to address the fact that he states himself that one of his primary motivations is that he feels the U.S. is attacking Islamic nations. Is he wrong?
Your position is that the U.S. is defending itself from him is exactly the same argument he applies toward the United States. If you look at the evidence and the body count, can you honestly say that Osama does not have a point and that the U.S. was defending itself in Palestine, Somalia, and other attacks on Muslims that the U.S. supports around the world?
The funny thing too is that if you read Osama, some of your other arguments fall flat. He held Afghanistan under Taliban rule as the example - not Iran, which makes sense if one only has a basic understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shiites.
Further, I tried in vain to find any serious commentary on Spencer's work. I could find hardly anything, but I did find this from an article "Balancing the Prophet Four books about Muhammad shed as much light on the authors - and their convictions - as they do on the man himself" in the Financial Times, April 28, 2007 by Karen Armstrong:
"The criminal activities of terrorists have given the old western prejudice a new lease of life. People often seem eager to believe the worst about Muhammad, are reluctant to put his life in its historical perspective and assume the Jewish and Christian traditions lack the flaws they attribute to Islam. This entrenched hostility informs Robert Spencer's misnamed biography The Truth about Muhammad, subtitled Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.
Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, largely, it seems, to prove that it is an evil, inherently violent religion. He is a hero of the American right and author of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th- century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad's life. Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact. Even more damaging, he deliberately manipulates the evidence.
The traditions of any religion are multifarious. It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians and does not mention the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam with the People of the Book: "Say to them: We believe what you believe; your God and our God is one."
Yes, that sounds about right.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2007 @ 4:24pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 4:24pm
Karen Armstrong is an AMAZING scholar!
I read her book entitled "History of God" and it really did shed light on that last quote: Your God and Our God are One.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 4:24pm
A very myopic response. I own an authorized english translation of the Qu'ran (although Islamists will claim that only an Arabic version is truly authorized) and have investigated for myself. I also view different Islamic websites, both religious and militant. I read the commentaries by the Imams and Mullahs for their interpretations. The weight of the text is completely opposite of what you propose and is backed by history. Islam has never been a religion of peace as evidenced not only by it's writings but it's history of conquest of others.
It constantly amazes me that individuals like yourself ignore the truth to the point of even supporting the fantasy that Islam is peaceful to Jews and Christians. These same Muslims would find you not only an infidel, but would not hesitate to kill you or enslave you in the name of Allah.
Finally, on Spencer, why not take his challenge which Muslims have so far failed to accomplish of debunking his book if he is incorrect. Hardly a cherry picking, any serious read of the Qu'ran will find it filled with comparable text. His analysis is echoed by many other writers (of whom I listed several in a previous thread last week).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 5:10pm
Karen Armstrong is an AMAZING scholar!
I read her book entitled "History of God" and it really did shed light on that last quote: Your God and Our God are One.
Posted by METTEYYA 12/10/2007 @ 4:44pm
Now that is a joke. Armstrong is neither a true scholar nor a theologian. She is a former nun who has a profound dislike of historic (ie little o orthodox christianity). Only those on the far left who have disdain for the Bible and Christianity find her appealing.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 5:12pm
Some additional light on Islamic view of Christians and Jews
In explaining how the Jews and Christians must "feel themselves subdued," Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad: "Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley." He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.
This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for "safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion" – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, "ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace."
Of course, the Pact of Umar is a seventh-century document. But the imperative to subjugate non-Muslims as mandated by Qur'an 9:29 and elaborated by this Pact became and remained part of Islamic law. In the nineteenth century the Western powers began to pressure the last Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, to abolish the dhimma. In Baghdad in the early nineteenth century, Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi (1802-1853), author of the noted commentary on the Qur'an Ruhul Ma'ani, complains that the Muslims have grown so weak that the dhimmis pay the jizya through agents, rather than delivering it themselves on foot. In his Tafsir Anwar al-Bayan, the twentieth-century Indian Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri laments that "in today's times, the system of Atonement (Jizya) is not practised at all by the Muslims. It is indeed unfortunate that not only are the Muslim States afraid to impose Atonement (Jizya) on the disbelievers (kuffar) living in their countries, but they grant them more rights than they grant the Muslims and respect them more. They fail to understand that Allah desires that the Muslims show no respect to any disbeliever (kafir) and that they should not accord any special rights to them."
The influential twentieth century jihadist theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) emphasizes that these rules should be revived, for "these verses are given as a general statement, and the order to fight the people of the earlier revelations until they pay the submission tax with a willing hand and are subdued is also of general import" (In the Shade of the Qur'an, Vol. VIII, p. 126). Likewise the Pakistani jihadist writer and activist Syed Abul A'la Maududi (1903-1979) states that "the simple fact is that according to Islam, non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made, ways if they so wish." That heads off any potential contradiction between his understanding of v. 29 and 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion." Maududi continues by declaring that the unbelievers "have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God's earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life" (Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. III, p. 202).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019086.php#more
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 5:34pm
SRJ and Metteya,,
You need to understand some foundations of Islam, such as the doctrine of abrogation.
The principle of abrogation -- al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) -- directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad's career "abrogate" -- i.e., cancel and replace -- earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:
2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
That leads to the passages of war and conflict with Christians and Jews that proceed after your quote in Sura 2:256
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 5:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 5:37pm
You missed the point! It is not abrogation, but "similitude" as the writing style and revelation of the Quran. Each subsequent verse may be "similar" to a previous verse, but adds some new spiritual dimension upon further reflection and prayer.
And you forgot the part about Karen Armstrong being an Oxford grad and one of the foremost scholars in the world on Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Not bad for a former nun!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2007 @ 6:29pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 5:10pm
What does the Bible say regarding retaliation and the treatment of enemies? Even if what you say were true, what then is the appropriate Christian response?
You didn't answer this question. Even if I were to accept your position - which I don't, the appropriate response is not fear or committing acts of violence.
The bottom line is that I am careful about what I spend my time on because of Sturgeon's Law (Ninety percent of everything is crud). On the face of it, this smells of right wing scare-mongering.
The fact that there is very little discussion of Spencer's ideas outside of the cheerleading on right wing websites supports my initial assessment. I've also looked at some of the other books you have suggested in the past - Islam & Dhimmitude, Because They Hate, Why I am Not a Muslim and so forth. There is nothing here that convinces me that your analysis is correct.
But the real problem is not your analysis, it is what you propose to do in light of your analysis. You propose some kind of war to save non-Muslims from your hypothetical scenario of death and enslavement.
I say let's run the risk. It is better to love our enemies and turn the other cheek - rather than pursue a war that runs counter to every teaching of Christ.
As for Spencer, I don't see any need to check for myself. I don't see any need to debunk every bad idea that conservative wonks come up with. I don't need to read The Far Tax Book, In Defense of Internment, Darwin's Black Box, The Homosexual Agenda, Treason and all the other pieces of intellectual prostitution that are packaged and sold to a ready made, right wing audience. There are better ways to spend both my time and my money.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2007 @ 6:56pm
Posted by METTEYYA 12/10/2007 @ 6:29pm
Sorry, but Islam and the Quran itself call it abrogation not similitude
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/handouts/abrogation.html
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml
From and Islamic site
However, in the Quran, the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In time the new law appears and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=2656&CATE=1
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6594
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 7:05pm
As for Spencer, I don't see any need to check for myself. I don't see any need to debunk every bad idea that conservative wonks come up with. I don't need to read The Far Tax Book, In Defense of Internment, Darwin's Black Box, The Homosexual Agenda, Treason and all the other pieces of intellectual prostitution that are packaged and sold to a ready made, right wing audience. There are better ways to spend both my time and my money.
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 6:56pm
In other words you have a closed mind and are unwilling to confront your own opinions. I may have some very deep rooted beliefs, but I do take the time to read the views and opinions of those I disagree with. That is why I spend so much time on this site, Counterpunch, Link and FreeSpeech TV, Democracy Now, Pacifica Radio, Chomsky and Zinn's writings, etc.
A pity you have no intellectual curiousity or honesty to examine contrasting views and opinions.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 7:09pm
What does the Bible say regarding retaliation and the treatment of enemies? Even if what you say were true, what then is the appropriate Christian response?
You didn't answer this question. Even if I were to accept your position - which I don't, the appropriate response is not fear or committing acts of violence.
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/10/2007 @ 6:56pm
Here you actually raise a significant and long debated theological question among Christians. However not inline with the reason you present.
I say that because you are confusing separate questions as being one and the same. The teachings on retaliation and the response and/or treatment of enemies you often cite deal with interpersonal relationships. On that you and I have no disagreement. In fact my message last night dealt in part with the absolute need to love one another and including our enemies. I have shared on this site previously that the love of Christ that dwells within me causes me to extend care and compassion even to a jihadist if they came into my presence.
Where you go wrong is in linking together these commandments in our interpersonal relationships with the roles of governments. It is this area where Christians are truly faced with some debate over how to respond. The debate as you know from Quaker theology centers around whether Christians should participate in wars. It is deemed an individual choice. The Bible is silent on this. Clearly Christ nowhere called Christians not to submit to government. Quite the opposite. But most theologians agree that in making this individual choice, one's own conscience should dictate.
God has ordained governments to execute justice, and I'm not aware of any scriptural evidence you have to indicate that Jesus said otherwise. He in fact made it quite clear that those who do not believe in Him, remain dead in their sins which also makes them subject to the Torah.
Finally, my position comes not from fear, but a respect for God's righteousness, justice, and Jesus's clear statement of Him executing judgment and wrath on unbelief and sin.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 7:21pm
SRJ,
good dialogue..I must be off to an appointment. Hope we continue soon.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2007 @ 7:21pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 7:09pm
In other words, there are many beliefs people have in the world - 9/11 Truth, revolutionary communism, environmentalism (particularly global warming), holocaust denial, fundamentalist Islam and on and on - all of which have their critics. It is not possible to read everything, so you have to make choices.
In this case, I already have a perspective that addresses Spencer. I don't think the problem in fundamentalist Islam is Islam. I think the problem is in fundamentalism - which shows common patterns whether it is Islamic, Christian, Hindu or some other form of religious expression.
Since I cut the concepts in this way, it leaves Spencer providing me with examples of the problems of fundamentalism. I know a few Muslims - converts and people born into the faith, and I know from experience that the universal claims he tries to apply to the whole religion don't hold water. It's the problem when you focus too much on what is written or what a few people say - rather than on what they do.
Did Christ ask any of his disciples to cut their hands off or poke out an eye? Perhaps that might be a hint for those that might be a little too literal minded - that the religion is perhaps more complex than they imagined.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 10:10am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 7:21pm
Governments aren't moral agents. While participation in war may be an individual choice, it is a choice of whether or not to choose evil. Render unto to Ceasar doesn't mean we render our ability to make moral choices.
God has ordained governments to execute justice, and I'm not aware of any scriptural evidence you have to indicate that Jesus said otherwise.
I don't recall anywhere in the Gospel where Jesus states that "God has ordained governments to execute justice". In fact, if this were true, you would have expected him to start his own government - which he did not do, even though that was what was expected.
I think you are on shakey ground here. God is capable of rendering his own justice. We should focus on living the ethical life he prescribed and not pretend that some terrible moral choice we are prepared to make on ground of fear of enslavement or death is somehow an expression of God's justice. It isn't.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2007 @ 10:22am