Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
When a person who has been targeted before is murdered, as Dr. George Tiller was, there are a lot of what ifs.
What if, back in the 1990s, after the first attempt on Tiller's life, mainstream media had overcome their reluctance to report on violence against abortion providers?
What if, way back then, they'd called the violence by its rightful name: domestic terrorism?
What if, when Dr. David Gunn was shot down in Pensacola Florida in 1993, the newspapers of record hadn't covered that story as if Gunn and his killer were somehow equivalent? "Both Impassioned" as the Washington Post put it. That's not how they talked about 9-11. Passion on both sides? Not in the least.
What if Bill O'Reilly hadn't so often referred to Tiller as a baby killer? What if he'd been pulled off the air for incitement. What if?
Perhaps most urgently, what if we had law-enforcement that took the violent margins of the conservative movement as seriously, as say, the property-damagers of the environmental fringe? (For most of the last decade, the FBI's top priority domestic terror threat was "eco-terrorism")
On his Americablog, right-wing watcher John Aravosis has been talking for weeks about a new line coming out of the radical right. In the debate over extending the hates crimes protections to LGBT people, extreme right fundamentalist Christian leaders could be heard calling for an exemption for their "right" to kill, "provided they claim the murder was inspired by their faith," Aravosis wrote on May 22.
On Monday, that language appeared in the New York Times.
Commenting on Dr. Tiller's death, Dave Leach, an anti-choice activist from Des Moines who runs the newsletter Prayer and Action News said, "to call this a crime is too simplistic. There is Christian scripture that would support this."
Crazy? Yes. To be ignored? Absolutely not. Homeland Security was right to list extreme anti-choice groups in its report on Domestic Terror threats. If Obama had held firm in the face of the criticism last month, he'd be soaking up the commendations now. Instead the administration backed off in face of a flack-attack from right-wing pundits.
Now a man is dead, and, as John put it, "an American church has been shot up during services." And some – like John – can't help but wonder -- what if the Obama administration had sent a different message?
The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders the host of GRITtv, which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, public television and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- 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
- ZNet
RSS
Religious extremism...
radical zealots killing innocent Americans...
"leaders" egging them on....
Read the right-wing bloggers and Scott Roeder is "just another criminal" and "so what, people murdered every day in big cities", Bill O'Reilly claiming that he is being "unfairly attacked" for "supposedly" leading to the violence and "no reflection at all on the general pro-life movement".
Which of course is the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim when it's Muslim extremists and terrorism.
So, using their standard for that, unless we get loud, consistant, and constant denouncments of Roeder by "Christian clerics"...it "proves" the pro-life movement and even Christianity is "based on hate and violence". Plus we need to start some wiretapping. Plus we might need to "intensively interrogate" Randall Terry...maybe even O'Reilly!
Hey...not MY standard...it's theirs!
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 08:33am
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 08:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
Repost from Peter's article --
Right on. These dispassionate statements such 'we don't condone violence' from fire breathing liberal and Muslim haters belies their "secret" celebration and support for such actions.
Saw Frank Schaeffer, author of Crazy for God, on Maddow last night. He stated precisely what you allude to, and went further, stating that the public face of these characters is far different than the private face, and that he would be very surprised if there weren't more than a few "secret" celebrations with champagne corks popping among the fundamentalist anti-abortion crowd.
Schaeffer is refreshing and genuine in his regret. The "silence" from the right says it all - and it will happen again until we stop them.
The fundamentalist anti-abortion crowd does have the responsibility not to create an environment where "nutcases" can flourish. They should not turn a blind eye. They wouldn't do that for a militant Muslim in the midst.
Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2009 @ 08:58am
Terrorism justified by theology?
GWOT?
Not in My Back Yard, say the anti-religious terrorism religious extremists.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 09:11am
Check out Randall Terrys comments.
He is basically calling for a jihad.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 09:14am
I'm curious...
..what if the pro-choice movement weren't all a bunch of law-abiding pacifists?
..what if some of them decided that enough is enough and that they need to take the law in their hands and serve up street justice onto the most notorious advocates of anti-choice terrorism?
..what if some of them decided to alert President Obama that if he does not do the right thing and take strong measures along the lines advocated by Melissa McEwan on Alternet and Laura Flanders here, that the streets will run red with anti-choicer blood because he refused to take an emphatic pro-choice stand?
Is it possible that if violence in the hands of anti-choicers is effective, that it can be effective in the other direction as well?
Like I said, just curious...
Posted by Goldmarx at 06/02/2009 @ 09:20am
"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be [called] the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."-George W. Bush
Of the terrorists, GWB also said "They seek to oppress and persecute women."
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 09:23am
what if the pro-choice movement weren't all a bunch of law-abiding pacifists?
We are not. We will just target our violence well, as opposed to the "Pro-Life" movement that uses cluster bombs and phophorus on villages and towns.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 09:25am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 09:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
'In 2000, Terry divorced his wife of 19 years, Cindy,[4] and married his former church assistant, Andrea Sue Kollmorgen.[5][6][8] Kollmorgen, born circa 1976, was approximately 25 at the time of their nuptials;[9] Terry is 17 years older. As a consequence of the divorce, the home on 119 acres where he had lived with Cindy and their four children was to be sold.[8] His decision to divorce in 2000 to marry the youthful Kollmorgen was unfavorably contrasted in the mainstream press to his own stern judgment expressed in his 1995 book, The Judgment of God: "Families are destroyed as a father vents his mid life crisis by abandoning his wife for a 'younger, prettier model.' "[4] His sentiments against divorce had been so strong that when his own parents divorced, "Randall refused to let his children speak with their grandfather for three years," according to interviews with the family done by the Washington Post.[4]
As a result of Terry's divorce from Cindy Dean, the pastor of the Landmark Church of Binghamton, New York, "unceremoniously tossed him out"[4] although Terry had been a member there for 15 years.[10] That church had previously censured him for abandoning his wife and the two children still at home in preparation for divorce, and for a "pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women."[6][10]'
Source: Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2009 @ 09:29am
On other blogs, I've noted a few moves by the Right-
1. "Sure murder is terrible and I don't condone it, but look at the terrible stuff Tiller was doing" (i.e. equivalency to excuse the murder)
2. "You guys are getting so worked up over the murder of an abortionist, but don't care about all the murders in inner cities" (i.e. distract to a phoney "libs weak on crime" argument, while simultaneously indicating that an "abortionist" life is of little value)
3. "Tiller killed babies" (usually left blank afterwards, but a clear "hint" that they support Roeder's move.)
and 4. (from the ones who want to appear "moderate" but are trying to "shave the difference" for their friends) "If it was _____, you libs would be saying..." (i.e. hypotheticals to provide CYA for 1, 2, and 3 posters.)
Any of which they would NEVER use if it was a Muslim extremist engaging in an act of terrorism.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 09:43am
Let me get this sin concept straight, basically, any action is justifiable if god has whispered into your fevered brain that he's "on your side"? Now I know why so many people start up their own religions! What happens then when the voice I hear tells me something different from the voice you hear? Oh wait, that's schizophrenia.
Posted by mishelley at 06/02/2009 @ 09:56am
"If abortionists were gunned down every week, it would gather no more attention than crack dealers who are gunned down every week." -Randall (Mr. Family Values) Terry
Also ""Pro-lifers must not flinch, waver, or in any way alter our course in our epic struggle to make child killing illegal again."
Would that apply to Muslim villages as well? Wouldn't that make Bush a war criminal?
I love the double standards of the Core Values crowd. "Those religious extremists should be killed, ours should be mildly rebuked, with caveats blaming the death on the physician that was acquited of charges and that saved womens lives."
Too rich.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 09:56am
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 09:43am
If Dr. Tiller killed babies, wouldn't he have been charged and convicted of such a heinous crime? He was never even charged with a felony, from what I can tell.
I guess it is a case of judicial activism again, not domestic terrorism.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 10:05am
Well, CRAB, counter-balancing Larry/antisoc's denouncment of the murder...
against Terry's endorsement of it, I'm afraid, per the SOP since 9/11, we have no choice but to conclude that "Christianity is a religion of hate and violence!"
Hate to do it, but THEY set the standards!
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 10:22am
Maybe Randall isn't a "real" Christian. Just because he calls himself one, means nothing.
I am learning the Path of The Right.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 10:38am
Which of course is the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim when it's Muslim extremists and terrorism.
So, using their standard for that, unless we get loud, consistant, and constant denouncments of Roeder by "Christian clerics"...it "proves" the pro-life movement and even Christianity is "based on hate and violence". Plus we need to start some wiretapping. Plus we might need to "intensively interrogate" Randall Terry...maybe even O'Reilly!
Hey...not MY standard...it's theirs!
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 08:33am
There is no NT scripture that allows for or commands the murder of others. I would challenge anyone from the pro life or the pro abortion side to cite a single scripture that does so.
I also condemn Randall Terry's lack of condemnation for the death of Dr Tiller.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:51am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:51am
But would you condemn him to GITMO?
He appears to meet many of your criteria for those detained.
And, are you not the one that says we have to fight evil? That is what "Dr. Terry is saying, along with you, that abortion is evil. Surely you don't see wiggle room in your core values.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:06am
BTW, I notice that no one on the left is raising this murder
<A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one, police said Monday. "This individual appears to have been upset with the military, the Army in particular, and that's why he did what he did," Little Rock Police Lt. Terry Hastings said.
"He has converted to (Islam) here in the past few years," Hastings said. "We're not completely clear on what he was upset about. He had never been in the military.
"He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them. That's what he said."
Interviews with police showed that Muhammad "probably had political and religious motives for the attack," the police chief said.
Thomas said Muhammad would be charged with first-degree murder, plus 15 counts of committing a terroristic act. He said those counts result from the gunfire occurring near other people.>
http://tinyurl.com/nvg66q
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:07am
"Indefinite detention is entirely within the scope of Geneva and Hague IV"
-antisocialist 5/24/09
We are at war, after all.
From Big Posure, 5/24/09
"The discussion began with a presentation of the administration's legal position. In the global war on terrorism, the unique nature and methods of U.S. adversaries requires the administration to act deliberately to apply the rules of war. In doing so, the administration has drawn a distinction between lawful combatants, who are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and unlawful combatants, who are not protected but who should be treated humanely and receive care in the form of privileges--not rights--consistent with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. Discussants focused on four issues: the authority to detain, the decision to detain, the rights of the detained and the length of the detention. The administration views its authority to detain enemy combatants as an obligation that is set out in the Constitution, supplemented by Congressional resolution and consistent with historical precedent. The purposes of detaining enemy combatants are, among other things, to prevent further harm and to gather intelligence.
The authority to determine enemy combatant status, including of U.S. citizens, ultimately falls within the president's constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief."
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:07am
Not a "real" Muslim.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:17am
You may not like it, but he (Big Pasture) is right on. Take it up with your pals in Congress who passed it and who said at the time, "we don't care what you do, just keep it from happening again". At least for awhile, Congress realized we faced imminent danger and reacted with common sense which the vast majority of Americans agreed. Posted by pyeatte at 05/24/2009 @ 7:19pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:51am
Yep, answer crab's question, Larry...
would you like to see Randall Terry and a few of his friends brought in for "questioning"?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:24am
Sure Dreyfuss...'cause we all know that if you send undercover agents into churches and synagogues, you are likely to find people who can't wait to kill Muslims; they're simply waiting for an undercover agent to give them that final push...
Sorry, but this is the most pathetic thread you've posted todate.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 10:21am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:27am
While Obama often came off yesterday as whiney, Cheney reminded the nation what mature and informed leadership offers the nation in maintaining eternal vigilance against those who would destroy us.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 10:22am
---
In the aftermath of 9/11, there is NO turning back to the Pre-9/11 mindsetPosted by Happy at 05/22/2009 @ 3:34pm
---
Yep, everywhere you look there seem to be useful idiots willing to pick up a gun or anything handy to rob a convenience store, liquor store just to kill someone for $20.00! Terrorist are more fun!
Don't mind seeing any of them carted off and destined to become the "flavor of the month" symbol of American injustice and the new "social victim" symbol for the wacko leftist to epitomize and work to free them, disreguarding the human misery they cause leave a trail of behind them, before they commit their next atrocious acts!
Posted by BigPasture at 05/23/2009 @ 01:1
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:35am
BTW, I notice that no one on the left is raising this murder
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
So if Islam is to blame for the killing of the recruiters, then logically, you will find blame with "the military" as per the story below?
'Army 'broke' soldier held in killings, dad says Feels military bears some responsibility: 'It shouldn't have happened'
'Excerpts of his military record, obtained by The Associated Press, show Sgt. Russell previously did two one-year tours of duty in Iraq, one starting in April 2003 and another in November 2005. The stress of repeat and extended tours is considered a main contributor to mental health problems among troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.'
There have been several similar incidents in the Iraq war.
Last September, Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich, 39, of Minneapolis was detained after allegedly killing two members of his unit south of Baghdad. The case remains under investigation. In April 2005, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar was sentenced to death for killing two officers in Kuwait just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In June 2005, an Army captain and lieutenant were killed when an anti-personnel mine detonated in the window of their room at the U.S. base in Tikrit. National Guard Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez was acquitted in the blast. Spc. Chris Rolan, an Army medic, was sentenced to 33 years in prison in 2007 for killing a fellow soldier after a night of heavy drinking in Iraq. In 2008, Army Cpl. Timothy Ayers was sentenced to two years and four months in prison after pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the fatal 2007 shooting of his platoon sergeant.'
Source: MSNBC - AP
Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2009 @ 11:38am
Very good posts here. I don't think I could add anything that has not been said..
Gee, thanks a bunch!
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 12:11pm
"While Obama often came off yesterday as whiney, Cheney reminded the nation what mature and informed leadership offers the nation in maintaining eternal vigilance against those who would destroy us"
so if cheney is so "mature and informed," then why was he silent and in near-perpetual hiding for almost the entire eight years of his vice presidency?
the only reason cheney remains in "eternal vigilance" is because he doesn't want to go to prison for the rest of his life.
Posted by darladoon at 06/02/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by darladoon at 06/02/2009 @ 12:14pm
Well, we should give Dick partial credit, DD.
He did side against Larry on "moral decline" by supporting gay marriage the other day.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 12:35pm
But would you condemn him to GITMO?
He appears to meet many of your criteria for those detained.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:06am
Terry while he did not outright condemn the murder, did not call for murdering.
Everyone held in Gitmo was taken into custody for either a)directly engaging in terrorism, or b)directly supporting terrorism financially or through other means.
If you can show me where Terry is doing either, then detain him for questioning.
But not at Gitmo. The MCA specifically excludes US citizens.
But the greater issue with this really weak argument of equal terrorism, is that it just falls short.
the Islamist terrorism is directed towards everyone who is not a Muslim or is a Muslim who doesn't completely support their efforts.
While still wrong, all of the cases of violence have been specifically targeted at people the murderers thought were also engaged in murder, not people in general. So there is no general threat to public safety as there is with Islamic terrorism.
As noted last night by Jonathan Turley, the liberal law professor:
<The problem we have, as you know, is to deal with lone actors like this. I don‘t believe that the man who killed Dr. Tiller was a classic terrorist. I think that he was a murderer. He assassinated him.
But I don‘t see the elements of an organized terrorist plot. And in many ways, he‘s the most dangerous thing that we face.
And the Supreme Court said in the Brandenburg case that violent speech is protected. In fact, I‘ve represented people accused of violent speech, including terroristic speech. And that is a very difficult line, because it is, in fact, protected, to say all abortion doctors should be killed.>
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31065354/
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 12:38pm
Zowie, Larry.
You sure are able to dance a fine line with your Core Values.
Of course it is terrorism. The desire is to terrify doctors into not performing legal medical procedures.
"Hit Lists" for abortion providers.
Calling out a jihad on abortion providers.
Using donations to support internet, mail and other forms of distribution of anti-abortion propaganda, including the distr8ibution of Hit Lists.
Appearing outside of Dr. Tillers office, the site of terrorist attacks on Dr. Terry, with the terrorist himself.
oooo, guilty by association.
Like Bill Ayers.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 12:55pm
Everyone held in Gitmo was taken into custody for either a)directly engaging in terrorism, or b)directly supporting terrorism financially or through other means.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 12:38pm
So why were 100s released?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 12:56pm
Appearing outside of Dr. Tillers office, the site of terrorist attacks on Dr. TILLER, with the terrorist himself.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 12:57pm
Everyone held in Gitmo was taken into custody for either a)directly engaging in terrorism, or b)directly supporting terrorism financially or through other means.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 12:38pm
Or after having been turned in for a bounty.
Or having the same name as an actual terrorist.
Or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But, they remain "the most dangerous".
Not to Dr. Tiller. The most dangerous to him appears to be a right wing evangelical terrorist.
Round em up. No rights, no access to courts, no lawyers that are not appointed by the military, no contact with anybody not approved by the military.
You guys set the standard, now it is amusing to watch you dance around your core. Like watching you support the whore Bristol, the divorcee Newt and the drug addict Rush.
You used to call it situational ethics. What do you call it now?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 1:02pm
posted by LAURA FLANDERS on 06/02/2009 @ 08:23am
I do find it appalling that the FBI has placed damage to car dealerships at a higher priority than a "movement" that repeatedly kills people.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 1:05pm
terrorism Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Damn that language.
You know, I think the word "better" is a religious term and we should not let the activist judges steal it.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 1:05pm
in 2001 pornography was a higher priority than Islamic Terrorism.
Family Values, you know.
Just ask Rep Foley.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 1:09pm
"Everyone held in Gitmo was taken into custody for either a)directly engaging in terrorism, or b)directly supporting terrorism financially or through other means"
this is perhaps the most obviously false thing i've read on this blog in a long, long time.
Posted by darladoon at 06/02/2009 @ 1:36pm
Or after having been turned in for a bounty.
Or having the same name as an actual terrorist.
Or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But, they remain "the most dangerous".
Not to Dr. Tiller. The most dangerous to him appears to be a right wing evangelical terrorist.
Round em up. No rights, no access to courts, no lawyers that are not appointed by the military, no contact with anybody not approved by the military.
You guys set the standard, now it is amusing to watch you dance around your core. Like watching you support the whore Bristol, the divorcee Newt and the drug addict Rush.
You used to call it situational ethics. What do you call it now?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 1:02pm
the courts have already ruled that your view is incorrect on terrorism
And calling Bristol Palin a whore? Can you cite the evidence that she was having sex for money? You can be pretty despicable at times.
Can you cite where anyone ever was supportive of Rush's drug addiction?
or that divorce by Newt or anyone like him was a good thing?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 1:39pm
"the courts have already ruled that your view is incorrect on terrorism"
and the courts have already ruled that your view is incorrect on late-stage abortion, gay marriage (in 5 states and 5 countries), on medical marijuana (in 5 states and 5 countries), etc, etc.
so, what's your point?
Posted by darladoon at 06/02/2009 @ 1:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 1:39pm
crab exaggerating for effect, but reasonably close to your hypocrisy on those three individuals...though really more to the point on Bristol's mom.
On Rush and Newt and Sarah, you still grant them "authority" to speak on various "family values" issues, while the two men have SIX marriages among themselves...and the woman who proclaims the efficacy of "abstinence-only" being taught...is a grandmother to a teenage mother's child.
If they were liberals, living in opposition to their stated ideals, you'd be all over them and attack their credibility on the issues. Since they are conservatives, you throw out "No one is perfect, we're all sinners" and keep referencing them as authority figures.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 2:16pm
Not a "real" Muslim.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 11:17am
Recruiter Shooting Suspect Under FBI Investigation
Man Accused of Killing One Recruiter, Wounding Another, Spent Time in Yemen
The suspect arrested in the fatal shooting of one soldier and the critical injury of another at a Little Rock, Ark., Army recruiting booth today was under investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force since his return from Yemen, ABC News has learned.
But the car was loaded with a small arsenal. Officers who searched the car found more than 100 rounds of ammunition, an SKS assault rifle, two pistols, and two military books.
The ammunition was loaded in magazines which were found in a vest, police sources say.>
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7730637&page=1
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:16pm
On Rush and Newt and Sarah, you still grant them "authority" to speak on various "family values" issues, while the two men have SIX marriages among themselves...and the woman who proclaims the efficacy of "abstinence-only" being taught...is a grandmother to a teenage mother's child.
If they were liberals, living in opposition to their stated ideals, you'd be all over them and attack their credibility on the issues. Since they are conservatives, you throw out "No one is perfect, we're all sinners" and keep referencing them as authority figures.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 2:16pm
Still twisting Mask.
I've said before, that none of us knows whether Rush regrets his marital failures because he refuses to talk about it. If he doesn't, I don't respect that view.
Furthermore, I don't recall ever calling Rush a authority figure on morality.
As to Newt, he has stated that he regrets his marriage failures. Likewise with Newt on being a morality figure.
I consider both to be reasonably good figures on the issue of the conservative view of Govt, but I don't completely agree with either one.
And Sarah Palin has never excused or condoned even her daughters sex outside of marriage.
So what we have then is your attack on each of these people without any evidence that they are "living in opposition to their ideals".
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:22pm
As far as I am concerned about "Dick" Cheney, is when we are going to hang him for treason. Oh crap.. I just hurled when ObamaBush signed a bill honoring President Reagan.. What a joke.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 2:59pm
I just hurled when ObamaBush signed a bill honoring President Reagan.. What a joke.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 2:59pm
I've told you before that you are really a fringe individual when it comes to Reagan.
It passed unanimously in the Senate and only 19 people voted against it in the House.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h131/show
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:11pm
Damn!
all those congress critters FOR raising taxes and increasing the size of the federal government.
And yes, Larry, WE can be de-thpicable.
but at least I have the out of being mentally ill, a failure in my life and a doomed soul (according to your concrete like value system). What is your excuse?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:18pm
I've told you before that you are really a fringe individual when it comes to Reagan. Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:11pm
Yes I know Larry, I suppose I'am on the fringe. But even you must appreciate the insanity of honoring the very person who set up the current destruction of our country with his policies. And then to look at the President who has to deal with the problems that he inherited from as far back as the Reagan administration signing a bill to honor that son of a bitch is way to much for me to handle.
It is always tough when you know the truth. But you wouldn't have any idea what that is, would you Larry?
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 3:21pm
It is always tough when you know the truth. But you wouldn't have any idea what that is, would you Larry?
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 3:21pm
Actually I defer you question to Jesus who said that all those who had a relationship with Him "would know the truth, and the truth will set you free".
So, I would ascertain that means that I do know the truth.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:33pm
Actually I defer you question to Jesus who said that all those who had a relationship with Him "would know the truth, and the truth will set you free".
So, I would ascertain that means that I do know the truth.Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:33pm
Very strange post Larry, even for you. Do you often defer questions about current events to those long dead, in order to determine Truth? Or even those who may have never existed?
If so, I find that extraordinary. Do you always defer the decisions you make in life to a long dead prophet? And then you deign to call me on the fringe?
I'm intrigued. Please continue.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 3:43pm
If so, I find that extraordinary. Do you always defer the decisions you make in life to a long dead prophet? And then you deign to call me on the fringe?
I'm intrigued. Please continue.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 3:43pm
No I don't defer to prophets for the ultimate decision on truth. But since Jesus is G-d in the flesh, and He proclaims that not only is He the path to truth, He is the truth, I defer to G-d as being the source of truth over man.
Obviously man cannot ever be the source of truth since no person could ever be the ultimate source of truth over another man's "truth".
Thus only G-d can be the ultimate arbiter of truth and Jesus meets that requirement.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:48pm
Obviously man cannot ever be the source of truth since no person could ever be the ultimate source of truth over another man's "truth".----Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:48pm
So "men" didn't write the Bible, or would you like to IMMEDIATELY add an excemption to that rule?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 3:56pm
Thus only G-d can be the ultimate arbiter of truth and Jesus meets that requirement.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:48pm
Did you personally interview Jesus to ensure that he met the requirments of "Truth"? Or did you just read a book and then decide to devote your life to all it said? Because if you just read a book. Printed, designed and manufactured by men like you and decided to live your life by the words written therein, you are either insane or a fool. But you are not alone.
It is this brand of fairy tale childish thinking that has the world in such a mess. Until the human race evolves beyond this disease, we shall all be royally fu**ed. Some of us are way beyond this sort of nonsense and are waiting for the rest of you to catch up.
Please do, and soon. Your ignorance places us all in danger...
Posted by chaoszen at 06/02/2009 @ 4:28pm
>>>I also condemn Randall Terry's lack of condemnation for the death of Dr Tiller.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:51am <<<
Well, I have to give you "props" for at least admitting that Dr. Tiller's death is "clearly" murder and should be condemned.
There is still obviously the question of whether an unborn fetus that is growing in the body of another person has more rights than the person's whose body it needs, and depending upon where you come down on this it is a murder or not.
It certainly is not clear cut like the Tiller murder so to kill Tiller in the name of Jesus is perverse!
There was a third term abortion mother on CNN last night whose fetus was found to lack a skull and brain, and therefore she went to Tiller for a late term abortion AFTER MUCH ANGUISH AND RELUCTANCE.
The Right-to-Lifer's need to get a clue that women who perform abortions do NOT take this lightly and the highly personal nature of the decision REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO STAY OUT!!!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/02/2009 @ 4:54pm
So, I would ascertain that means that I do know the truth.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What Christians actually believe: A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest evangelical seminaries in the US. 2 The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."
This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. 3 They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:
95% of Episcopalians, 87% of Methodists, 82% of Presbyterians, 77% of American Lutherans, and 67% of American Baptists said "No."
However, the Christian laity is far more supportive of the inerrancy position. The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally:
58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings" 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally." 4
Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that:
41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches 5
They also published beliefs by denomination and metagroup:
Above average support for inerrancy: Pentecostal / Foursquare: 81% Assembly of God: 77% Christian, non-denominational (mostly Fundamentalist) 70% Baptist: 66% Seventh-day Adventist: 64% Church of Christ: 57%
Below average: Presbyterian: 40% Methodist: 38% Lutheran: 34% Latter-day Saints (Mormon): 29% Catholics: 26% Episcopal: 22% 5
Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2009 @ 7:41pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2009 @ 7:41pm </i>
Maybe it's because inerrancy is both easy to defeat and one of the most corrosive doctrines Christianity has ever seen.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/02/2009 @ 9:28pm
Maybe it's because inerrancy is both easy to defeat and one of the most corrosive doctrines Christianity has ever seen.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/02/2009 @ 9:28pm
Really, I think opposing inerrancy is near impossible from a standpoint of logic and evidence.
Perhaps you need to read John Warwick Montgomery for a start.
http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/
Then you could go to the Portable Seminary.
http://www.theportableseminary.com/
http://tinyurl.com/4tc47y
Josh McDowell's "the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (Vol's I & II)
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed.
Professor Hanko, "Issues in Hermeneutics"
http://tinyurl.com/pnx8lv
Read the works of J. Gresham Machen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:41pm
Maybe it's because inerrancy is both easy to defeat and one of the most corrosive doctrines Christianity has ever seen.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/02/2009 @ 9:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Indeed.
Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 10:24am
So "men" didn't write the Bible, or would you like to IMMEDIATELY add an excemption to that rule?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 3:56pm
Nope
On the examination of the inspiration of scripture
http://tinyurl.com/q9g2sr
1 Peter 1:20,21
Above all, here is what you must understand. No prophecy in Scripture ever came from a prophet's own understanding. 21 It never came simply because a prophet wanted it to. Instead, the Holy Spirit guided the prophets as they spoke. So prophecy comes from God.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 11:26am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:41pm </i>
Anti, anti, elephant hurling is a very old debate tactic indeed because listing a series of books and articles does not itself constitute a direct response to an argument.
I've made two independent responses so far, and only part of one of them has been at all responded to.
1) Inerrancy was not affirmed in the early church nor was it a criterion for selecting books of the Bible. The Catholic Church does not affirm it, and to my understanding, never has. Luther never affirmed it either.
Note: the latter 2 points (Catholics + Luther) are simply observations that your position is in the minority. The actual argument is the first part, that lack of any error was never a criterion for selecting books of the Bible to begin with.
2) Inerrancy is patently false because parts of the Bible affirm mutually exclusive theological positions. You've tried (though, I think unsuccessfully, to respond to the one about lukewarm-ness, but have utterly failed to resolve the one regarding works v. grace that referenced both Paul and James).
You've also not responded to the argument about its destructiveness. I'll grant that that the "easy to beat" part is contingent on the above arguments (or ones like them) being correct, but the fact that it's incredibly fragile and empirically destructive has never been responded to. It has destroyed people's faith when they've found something that seems (whether correctly or not) inescapably like an error.
I will say this, however. I fully intend to read the materials you've referenced, and if they change my mind I will of course "recant" (as they used to say). Until then, however, I simply fail to see how inerrancy can be correct.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/04/2009 @ 10:39am
Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 8:06pm
Inerrancy is theologically and philosophically incoherent.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 8:15pm
<Moreover, simply stating that there are no contradictions is insufficient, especially when the Catholic Church itself has recognized that these texts are not infallible. So let's talk about them:>
First you need to correct your terminology. Infallibility is a term used of Popes when they speak.
Inerrancy is the term used by both Catholics and Protestants to the reliability of the scriptures as originally given.
However, extending your question to inerrancy, I'm not sure where you get your information from. While I'm not Catholic, it is not difficult to know their official view.
It is detailed in their Document know as Dei Verbum. And it clearly agrees with the Chicago Evangelical Statement on Inerrancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Verbum
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
series of posts to follow
Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 2:10pm
Response to Thrawn continued
To your next point on inerrancy. I've repasted several of your remarks for response:
<Also, your position says "you either have to have inerrancy or reject Christianity." Besides the oddness of this argument given the overwhelming historical tradition that REJECTS inerrancy, your kind of argument is precisely why inerrancy is so destructive. Imagine that someone is told the Bible is inerrant. Imagine also that this person is not intellectually sophisticated. Someone comes up to them and says "look, passage X and passage Y contradict each other." They go "huh, that really does seem to be the case." The options you give them are either to suspend reason or to abandon faith.
I find your response here rather odd given that inerrancy is a relative newcomer in theological discourse. No one in the early Church believed the Biblical texts to be inerrant, nor did anyone at the Council of Nicea.>
You are at the heart of the issue of the validity of Christianity itself. If the text cannot be assumed to be correct in it's entirety, then nothing in the text can be trusted. The only conclusion you can then derive is the one taken by liberal theology which picks and chooses which scriptures to uphold (or at least consider potentially worthwhile) are those that agree with whatever particular bias they hold. This is true then for individuals as well as denominations. Despite it's contention that "some moral principles" can be held up as worthy of consideration, it is purely a man-made determination, and not reliant upon seeking the will of G-d. Jesus Himself set the bar. He declared in responding to Satan, "man cannot live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of G-d". (Matthew 4:4)
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 2:13pm
As to being recent, you again seem unaware of Church History. This view was held by most of the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers. Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian (See the reference link from the writings of R.A. Torrey)
http://tinyurl.com/q9g2sr
Your example of the "not intellectually sophisticated person" is sophistry. If I'm new to advanced mathematics, one of the sciences, or a study of language as examples, do I rely upon myself to answer those things I don't understand? Or, do I seek help from someone more knowledgeable on the subject? Thus the reason G-d gave the gift of the Pastor-Teacher (among others). The primary role of the Pastor besides shepherding his spiritual flock, is to be their primary teacher. As Paul stated in Ephesians 4 (11-14)
<And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;>
So, we see that one of the roles of the 4 fold offices as they are known, is to equip all believers for the work of ministry; and that they are mature in their faith, not deceived by every new man-made doctrine that comes along.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 2:15pm
Response to Thrawn continued
<Can a fornicator get to heaven? You have yet to respond to this. Paul clearly says no, Jesus equally clearly says yes. It's not just that their statements are divergent, it's that the grounds for their statements are mutually exclusive. In other words, this isn't a silly quarrel about detail, it's a fundamental tension.
The Book of James contains similar errors as those verses you yourself have mentioned from Paul.>
Here you display what is a fairly common error by those who have either never really studied the scriptures, or have done so without applying basic rules of hermeneutics.
There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul. And in this example, just keeping the passage in context would have answered your question. The verse following, verse 11, clearly states "and such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our G-d".
It is not what we were, but who we are now in Christ. Jesus and all of the Apostles show consistency in saying that, proof of that change in status is a change in how one lives after receiving Christ.
Likewise, contrary to secular opinion, there is no difference between Jesus, Paul, and James on grace. The verses on works by James are often cited as a supposed contradiction. Yet they actually contain none. James echoes Jesus and Paul in stating that works show the genuineness of our change. Paul states the same in Ephesians ch. 2. We were saved to do good works, not by our works. We cannot fulfill the words of Jesus that we be like Him and do the works that He did, unless we are like Him in the New Person who is filled with His character, goodness, and power.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 2:17pm