Jump to content
"Radical Islam doesn't mean Majority Islam."
You're getting warmer. You still appear unwillng to pull the trigger on the good or bad quesiton, though.
Radical Islam - good or bad? Unwillingness cuts both ways, it appears. Your repsonse has been semantic twaddle about majority rule and Catholic clergy. And the "Who are we, to judge?" is right out the PC playbook.
The question is pointless, just like your ridiculous rape vs. murder proposition.
Is your refusal to condemn radical Islam a religious thing? Only God should presume? That's not a dig; I'm genuinely curious.
My, we're being oh so literal to day, aren't we?
Here's an absolutist postition: Rape is bad. Can we agree on that? Or are there shades of gray I'm not sharp enough to recognize? Maybe we should wait "for God to come down personally" and issue a ruling.
Now substitute "radical Islam" for "rape." If you can't determine for yourself whether it's good or bad without waiting on God or history, I have to wonder if you have any genuine convictions at all about how people should behave and deal with each other.
Moral equivalence, as it generally applies any furor over us vs. them, accurately spotlights a tired old (& usually liberal) tactic. Someone indicts [fill in the blank]. The standard reply: But what about the Crusades! Slavery! Native Americans! Catholic Priests! Hiroshima! Watergate! Milli Vanilli! We've been EQUALLY loathsome!
It avoids the issue by attacking the indicter. We've done bad things, so how dare we evaluate the transgressions of anyone else. Moral relativism may be a more accurate label, but moral equivalence seems to have the currency, at least in the discussions I've seen/read.
":who makes up the moral codes" isn't relevant to my own sense of right & wrong. Nor to yours, given what you've said about slavery. Something is either good or bad. Radical Islam is evil. The Catholic Church isn't germane.
I think (but don't know) that skipole may have been referring to Rev. Wright.
Your 'majority rules' song & dance is nothing more than a ploy to insulate you from making a judgment call on right vs. wrong; or calling bull$hite on another party's evil.
Can't call the Islamofreaks on institutionalized bloodlust because of wayward Catholic priests. Can't condemn honor killings because slavery is a part of our history, or because of your religion's "dark past." Unmitigated BS.
I assume you're willing to condemn American slavery, even though it was legal institution until 1865. There were those who condemned the "majority" view before that same "majority" removed Jefferson's anti-slavery language from the final draft of the Declaration. Why are you so reticent to call evil by its name in the here and now? Right & wrong isn't hard to identify, regardless of what your unassailable "majority" decides.
You say moral equivalence is "an excuse to do something wrong for what a person believes is for good, whether the person is right or wrong." Trying to persuade you that the head choppers in the Middle East are evil is "wrong"? I'm wrong for asserting that murder is to be condemned? Because of Christianity's dark past?
Moral equivalence there couldn't be a more precise descriptor for that kind of claptrap.
Oh, re: rape v. murder you say you'd "rather be decapitated by terrorists and know that I held true to my convictions." That's more than a little silly. Show me the rapist who's going to give you the option, so as to preserve your "convictions."
In any event, one is survivable, and the other isn't. And the survivor can try to insure that the criminal doesn't create more victims. That's what many of the Catholic victims are doing, to their credit. You position strikes me as a little selfish, with all due respect.
"...a ms President..."
Forgive the assumption, but I'm guessing "ms" means Muslim. Last I checked, both Presidential candidates are Christians. If my assumptions are correct, what on earth are you talking about?
LOL, kielbasa - thanks for proving my point!
Your "analysis" of Islamic extremism is to sputter about Catholic clergy.
Hey Christians - priests have diddled altar boys, so you're all Zarqawis waiting to happen!
Sorry to have ignored your juvenile knock-knock question: I'd rather be raped by the Pope than decapitated by Al Qaeda.
Are you willing to "directly answer" any of the questions posed in my last post? Actually, they all boil down to this: I don't have a problem declaring our culture inherently superior to theirs. We have a civil authority to go after the priests who so offend you; there are no such avenues available to the victims drowning in the other side's cesspool, to cite only one distinction. If you honestly can't say that one is worse MUCH worse than the other, then you are the living embodiment of the moral equivalence label you sneer at.
"And Jazz- as I asked before: Would you rather be killed by a Muslim or raped by your priest?"
Google 'catholic abuse lawsuits' & see what you come up with.
If you are abused by a cleric, in whose culture would you rather seek redress for the grievance? If I murder my sister for venturing outside the home without her husband, where will I be penalized - in Denver or Tehran? If the local religious authorities hang your brother/son/cousin/friend for being homosexual, where are you most likely to see punishment meted out and justice done?
State/Church-sanctioned hatred, misogyny & slaughter=Catholic sex scandal. Moral equivalence at its most pathetic. I'd encourage you to do better than red herrings, but I'd hate to see you injure yourself.
Last login: Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |