Pope to Muslim Fanatics: Why bother?
Pope Benedict XVI "sincerely regrets" offending Muslims with his reference to an obscure medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," the Vatican said Saturday.
Apparently, the papal statement released in response to Muslim fury over the comments he made this week stops short of an apology.
Mohammed Bishr, a senior Muslim Brotherhood member in Egypt, said the statement "was not an apology" but a "pretext that the pope was quoting somebody else as saying so and so."
"We need the pope to admit the big mistake he has committed and then agree on apologizing, because we will not accept others to apologize on his behalf," Bishr said.
Meanwhile back at the bank...
Palestinians attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza over the pope's remarks Tuesday in a speech to university professors in his native Germany.
Does anybody in the "Muslim world" see the irony here? If it weren't so inhumane and evil I might laugh. Since no one out there is accusing Muslims of having a sense of humor, let me spell it out.
Beheading = evil
Firebombing churches and embassies over cartoons = evil
Killing women for dishonoring their families = inhumane and evil
Refusing to educate women = inhumane
Threatening others with death if they don't give in to your every demand = extortion, inhumanity and, you guessed it, evil
Any questions?
I may just have to make a Muslims Gone Wild video...
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/16 @ 02:13 PM — (Reply)
that video idea is great.
the Muslim Brotherhood is upset..oh no....I'm outraged at the outrageous outrage over this outrage
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/16 @ 08:59 PM — (Reply)
Isn't it obvious? Or are you really that crass?
An insult to anything Muslim is taken as an ad hominem insult. Christians have learned to shrug off/cut off heretics and accept punishment/mockery in the name of Christ as a gift from God. It's right there in the Pauline books.
Catholicism has nothing to do with their response.
Stop demonizing Muslims. The work of a few zealots doesn't characterize an entire ethnic group.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 03:59 PM — (Reply)
Albert, First of all, I'm not demonizing Muslims - these clowns are doing that to themselves by overreacting. Sticks and stones, man. Ever heard the phrase? Someone should translate that to Arabic and put it on a t-shirt.
Secondly, "the work" of a few zealots? Is that work as in opus? Like some accomplishment? Or work as in task - a job to do? Either way, attacking 5 churches because you don't like what a religious leader says is assinine. It's not work. It's lunacy.
And finally... "a few"? 19 hijackers is a few. Tens of thousands marching, burning embassies and demanding the heads of a group of CARTOONISTS is hardly a few.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 04:16 PM — (Reply)
Something else that's obvious: When you come to someone's virtual doorstep and join a conversation you should at least have the manners to get to know the speakers before you insert your foot in your mouth.
Just so I understand your position: Muslim fanatics should not be demonized for behaving badly because they haven't yet learned to behave like the good little Christians? Is that it? Or are you simply saying that tolerating offenses is a purely Christian trait? Are you suggesting that non-Christians do not have the capacity or disposition to ignore offenses, intentional or otherwise? Who's demonizing whom, here?
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 04:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/17 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
Being a Muslim ethnicity
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/17 @ 04:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/17 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)
Read your last 6 incomplete sentences.
"Being a Muslim ethnicity" = you're Arabic?
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 04:11 PM — (Reply)
I rewrote it because I left out some words and often on blogs people use shortcuts
I just happened to hit the say button before proofreading. Is this an English lesson ?
...if so we could start over..
otherwise you might want to read the last chapter of the Koran...Sura 9...it abrogates the rest of the Koran and calls for the death of infidels, Christians like yourself and Jews
There is an estimate that radical Islam makes up at least ten percent of Muslims. That equals 1.5 million radicals and the oh so silent majority of moderates.
As a matter of fact I happen to love Muslims. I give to a charity that reaches out to them.
Is it your wish Albert to become a dhimmi?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 04:35 PM — (Reply)
Noam Chomsky is suggested reading on Albert's site Cate.
Chomsky:
"September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in the world and how it is perceived"
Wouldn't want to blame those responsible, gotta blame the US.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 04:53 PM — (Reply)
I'm not paying him any mind ;-)
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Unlike what I've seen on your site.
Instead you, like Cate, like to demonize and generalize as to create paper enemies to support your ambiguous xenophobia for all things "anti-American".
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Don't confuse disgust for the commission of atrocities with fear. Irony and sarcasm are weapons as well in the war of words.
Or do you fail to see the irony in people wreaking destruction in response to being called evil and inhumane by someone they don't even recognize as an authority?
Since you didn't respond above, I'll repeat my earlier query:
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
Oh please Chomsky believes in libertarian socialism.
From Wikipedia: which includes a group of political philosophies dedicated to the abolition of private property by restoring direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes.
While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting liberty and social justice, libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action. Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule. Libertarian socialism has been described as anti-capitalist individualism
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
in other words communism, anarchism any other ism. Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". Using unofficial estimates a death toll which totals 94 million.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 06:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 06:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 06:56 PM — (Reply)
I also wanted to reply to your comment in my blog about "is this your brand of hudna, taqiyya or kitman?"
Hudna meaning mutually agreed peace, taqiyya meaning hiding one's faith. I'm not sure what kitman means. But, I would say no, I'm interested in neither hudna nor taqiyya. In reality I wage a war of words for Jesus. By that you could infer my position on hudna.
Sorry for the late reply.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 05:41 PM — (Reply)
my response was directed at Dr. Pino not you albert he's the one practicing taqiyya.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 06:55 PM — (Reply)
Paul was never so self-assured that he claimed that his political position or actions granted him passage to heaven.
This is why I apply myself towards correction, rebuke and training in righteousness - for the equipping of every man for good work.
2 Tim 3:16-17
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
And neither have I.
Actually, my lack of response indicates that I have a life.
And finally, are you suggesting that YOU are the source of orthodox Christianity? That to come unto Christ, I must do it through YOUR BLOG?
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 06:05 PM — (Reply)
Nice ad hominem there. Actually I was kind of wondering what happened to blogHi since I left and kind of wandered in.
No, I'm not suggesting that I am the "source of orthodox Christianity", if you're putting it in terms of a complete orthodoxy.
It's more of a "If you already claim Jesus to be your savior, prove it by doing good works" kind of deal in your case.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 06:34 PM — (Reply)
I do not know how to take you. You entered a conversation in progress, one that both EB and I recognized as sarcastic, and picked a fight by calling me crass. Next you slammed EB for his typos. And then you called my faith into question because I don't comment on your blog. You keep accusing me of ad hominem attacks but you walked onto my virtual porch and started the name calling.
You don't see the irony in the Muslim response to the Pope's words. Fine. You don't like my sense of sarcasm and humor. Fine. You want to talk to me condescendingly because I don't hang out with you over at your vitual clubhouse. That's fine, too. But if you want a real conversation then don't come over maliciously baiting me.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 07:04 PM — (Reply)
Albert - let me help you out.
It must be the fact that I don't think we should roll over and die by appeasing the radical Muslims,
Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.
In essence, this is religious license to renege on ones word, and to regroup, rearm, and reorganize to attack when ones enemy is lulled into thinking that one will be honest and fulfill ones side of a truce. This is tactic has been used over and over in Islam's history, and is used to great effect by Yasser Arafat, Hamas, al-Aqsa, and other Islamic terrorists all over the world. Recent examples include Fallujah and Najaf and Lebanon. What Westerners need to do is to read Islamic scripture and learn that in Islam there is no concept of permanent submission to any other power than God's. Treaties mean nothing. Beware the hudna.
kitman: hiding the truth about Islam from the infidels; lie by omission, rather than by commission, as in taqiyya
taqiyya: Dissimulation; lying for the sake of ones religion; concealing ones true religious beliefs for strategic reasons. Taqiyya is a lie by commission, rather than by omission, as in kitman. The concept of al-taqiyya is one historically associated with Shia Islam. This is because Sunni Muslims, who believe that Shiites are heretics, would impel them to denounce their faith, thinking this would expose them as mushrikeen when they refused to. In response, the Shia would do so, but hold true to their faith in their hearts, thus preserving their faith and their lives. Taqiyya is now used by Muslims as a means of deceiving infidels about Islam's aims, practices, and aspirations.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 06:05 PM — (Reply)
That was my response. Thanks for the add'l info though.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 06:37 PM — (Reply)
my apologies if I misunderstood
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 06:51 PM — (Reply)
The problem is you're not demonizing just the fanatics. I fail to see where you make a distinction b/t the fanatics themselves and the people who are just trying to live their lives under the Muslim theocracy.
To be clear, I don't believe anyone should be demonized. Look at Stephen Martyr or Jesus as your example. As a Christian you should understand that God had planned the physical body of destruction so as to play a role in its eventual redemption. This attitude should be imparted to all people, not just the ones you're partial to.
Furthermore, "tolerating offenses" isn't even a Christian trait. In an ideal setting we are active role-players in bringing offenders to Christ, thereby changing their behavior. So ultimately it's not even a matter of toleration.
Last point - your ad hominem - yes I was "demonizing" you and EB because I fail to see any compassion or charity in your views.
And, with regards to point 1, on the outside it doesn't look any different. The irony and sarcasm you attempt to display in this post (I'm not sure if I've read any other posts) only points towards an ambiguous xenophobia for me, sorry.
Moreover the only weapon I recognize in the war of words is Truth.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no irony associated with violently reacting to someone calling you names. I fail to see your perspective, sorry.
Also, responding to your comment in no. 4:
Were all burning embassies? Were all demanding their heads? You use words carelessly.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 06:26 PM — (Reply)
Albert,
Other than carelessly generalizing a lack of sense of humor, I did not generalize - the Pope did. I merely stated the obvious irony.
If an Imam makes a fitting comment about Christians fanatics, I promise to be just as sardonic.
I'm an equal opportunity smartass.
As for using my words carelessly - where have you been living? I said tens of thousands of muslims because that is the number news outlets reported and there were violent public displays across the globe during the 'cartoon jihad' earlier this year. Marching in a protest where where people are carrying signs that read "Death to all who insult Islam" is tacit approval of the cause. If you or I marched alongside neonazis - would there not be a conclusion drawn?
Further, I did not level an ad hominem attack. I asked a question. You entered this conversation and began leveling your own set of charges in what appears to be a blatant attempt to draw readers to your own blog hence your condemnation of me for not reading and commenting on your posts.
If you want an ad hominem attack here goes: You, Albert, have no sense of humor. Was the reference to a Muslims Gone Wild video not enough to clue you in I was being facetious? (in comment #1)
Futhermore, all of the italicized bits in the post are quotes from the AP report which you can read for yourself if you but click the blue link in the post. The term "Muslim World" was drawn straight from the AP article.
Again I ask - is reading your blog the only way to come to Christ?
You wrote:
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 06:52 PM — (Reply)
No, take responsibility for what you said.
Again, I fail to see the "irony" you quote as being "so obvious". Problem->reaction->solution right? So it's an expected outcome, not "ironic".
Nice try, but you're probably aware this isn't going to be in the mainstream news, if that's where you've been looking. This is false egalitarianism at its finest.
I read those articles as well. But it still doesn't mean everyone "tacitly approves" of the message on the banner. Some might not even be aware the banner even existed. Couldn't it also be the case that passive dissenters could be in the crowd (e.g., being forced to attend)? Again with the generalizations. Generalization = Dehumanisation
Yes, actually you did attack me with an ad-hominem.
Post 5:
You accused me (personal attack) of demonizing you (also personal attack) without providing reference.
Ad-hominem (via Google): appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
Regarding your second point, in that paragraph, I migrated to wordpress and stopped posting on blogHi. I also stopped replacing the ".blogHi" a while ago. So no, that's not a direct reason why I'm posting here.
My reason is only this: for those whom I sense claim to be Christian and display blatantly un Christ-like attitudes will get my definite input if not outright criticism.
If yours is the type of humor you intend to promote, I want no part of it. It is contemptuous and warped.
No, like I said before. You miss the subleties of what I said. Read again:
Post 23:
No, I'm not suggesting that I am the "source of orthodox Christianity", if you're putting it in terms of a complete orthodoxy.
It's more of a "If you already claim Jesus to be your savior, prove it by doing good works" kind of deal in your case.
The relationship of my blog to others is a different, probably varied, story.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
When Rosie O'Donnell made her comments last week about Christian fundamentalists, I was one of the conservative bloggers who didn't attack her. I don't care for her but I get her point. We have some psychos on the religious right in this country that bomb abortion clinics. And so whether or not I agree with her I understand where she's coming from. I'm not demanding a public apology - I'm not writing letters to the editor. I didn't even join the AFA campaign to punish ABC in response to Rosie's comments. (BTW, that made the mainstream news...)
The irony is that inhumane evil people attacked five churches to denounce being called evil and inhumane. That's the mother of all incongruities.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
(Sorry, didn't catch the Rosie O'Donnell story).
I agree with your example of wrong Christian fundamentalism. That's why we have to work on the right beliefs so that they translate to the right practices. False teaching in the church is an endemic problem in the modernized world and that is part of the reason about why I post.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
Isn't it obvious that rhetorical questions like these can be restated or refined with further dialogue?
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
You do know what they say about assumptions, don't you? And in my case you are dead wrong. My Muslim girlfriend and I discussed this issue at length and she is like mind. Stupid, violent overreactions by Muslim fanatics only validate the stereotype.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 08:26 PM — (Reply)
That is why there is "hate the sin, love the sinner" - the idea itself/ideas behind it are attacked, not the people. You're doing the latter.
Let me give you an example. You meet a Jihadist in America who has killed American GIs. What do you do?
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
I know that you feel like you are teaching me to be a better Christian but in reality you are being arrogant and condescending. Those are not Christian traits.
You still have not answered for coming here and calling me crass and attacking EB's typos. You started this contentious battle of keyboards assuming that we were haters and that we don't have Muslim friends and that we don't offer aid, charity, etc to people of every creed.
To answer your question: I pray that God offers him the same forgiveness that I seek. And I treat him with the same dignity and civility with which I treat everyone else. Something that has been sorely lacking from BOTH of us tonight.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 08:42 PM — (Reply)
there are consequences for that sin though Albert both in this world and in the next.
Yes everyone is a sinner and yes grace is extended to those who accept it, but if you commit murder you will face civil as well as spiritual consequences.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Then you misunderstand. I know it is not all Muslims. I usually draw a distinction by adding the word "radical". Nonetheless I believe the vast majority of Muslims have been silent on terrorism perpertrated by their heretical bretheren. According to a poll I heard about in England 4 out of 10 Muslims support Sharia law in Great Britain. No it's not all and yes there are some who do not support OBL, but the silence of the majority is deafening.
My Christian charity extends to Muslims but my abhorrence of evil also extends to those who wish me to convert to their brand of Islam or be killed. I love Muslims. I even have a genuine Christian love for Dr. Pino, my Christianity as well as my Savior compels me too. That being said it doesn't mean I am to tolerate evil and for that I will not apologize.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 07:04 PM — (Reply)
However you must recognize on the outside it looks the same. It isn't your job to continue with the demonization of the Arab world - corporate-media does that already. Instead I would suggest that you urge the passive dissenters to take a stand, if not bring them to salvation themselves.
Remember that "evil" isn't something that you just get rid of, or take a stand against. As a Christian I still struggle with swearing, selfish individualism and pornography, probably among other things. Shouldn't that same stand against evil be taken against yourself, first? All sin is the same to God.
So in summation, I believe we as Christians must strive toward imitating Jesus, being the pinnacle of superiority. Moreover, this essentially translates to missionary work and possible martyrdom.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 07:35 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 07:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 07:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 07:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:43 PM — (Reply)
That's why my wife and I support missionaries to Islam. Muslims are the largest unreached peoples group in the world when it comes to the Gospel.
I respectfully disagree with you about demonizing them. The actions of radical Muslims are reprehensilble and I am not going to gloss that over in some kind of kum by yah moment. I will continue to love Muslims by reaching out to them but I will also fight against the evil actions of a few.
Holding people accountable for their evil can be a loving thing. I am sure you have heard the saying love the sinner but hate the sin. My philosophy.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
I don't believe you make the same mistake as Cate and Barry G in generalizing. I also agree that the "actions of radical Muslims are reprehensilble and I am not going to gloss that over in some kind of kum by yah moment", either. This is just plain ignorance.
However to add to your last point, loving the sinner in Jesus' case meant giving up his life for them. I believe we as Christians must strive to have the same attitude in spite of the perceived amplification of evil.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:13 PM — (Reply)
The muslims proved the Pope's point immediately with idiotic statements such as:
"Whoever offends our Prophet Muhammad should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim."
#2: Kent State Professor julio (jocko) sheethead bendover camelbutt sniffer pino Gets Part Time Job
"sheethead"; "camelbutt sniffer"
#3: double-generalization due to poor references (not every American sees this as representative of America; e.g., certain expatriates): 9/11 Flags and United States Amerian Flag Surround islam islamo islamist nazi muslim terrorists and Will Destroy the Menace
"When any islam islamo islamist nazi muslim terrorist attacks one American, every United States citizen is attacked."
Etc.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:29 PM — (Reply)
Give me your mailing address and I'll send you a dictionary.
i have to go back to my initial reaction to your comments. You must be on drugs.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:36 PM — (Reply)
Wrong again. #2: "sheethead" and "camelbutt sniffer" are generalized racial epithets.
#3: re-read my qualifiers.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Albert I also have Christian friends who read my blog..comments etc and hold me in check. I ask them quite often what they think and does it jive with my Christianity. Sometimes I do get angry and I admit I make mistakes.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 07:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 07:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 07:20 PM — (Reply)
Like the strawman argument there. Where did I excuse their behavior?
Your last sentence betrays your xenophobia. What about the passive dissenters?
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
How about the compassion and charity for the Pope who should be allowed to speak whatever he wishes without receiving death threats? Everybody gets offended. You don't launch a media blitz demanding an apology. and you certainly don't destroy other people's churches.
Muslims have to recognize their radicals the same way Christians recognize the behavior of Eric Rudolph. Violence in response to words just validates what the Pope said. (That's called irony.) [That part in the parenthesis is called sarcasm.]
This is even worse than American Jewish organizations excoriating Mel Gibson and demanding a public apology which they subsequently refused and demanded he try again.
People are allowed to say things, stupid and otherwise. I'm not Catholic or a papal apologist but for crying out loud this is a huge overreaction and a manipulation of our overly PC culture.
"Sticks and stones may break my boes but words will never hurt me" Don't little children learn that anymore???
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 07:19 PM — (Reply)
I agree that we live in an overly PC culture. But what is to be done about it?
I also agree their behavior is unjustified, but again I don't see the necessity of demonizing them beyond the extent to which they've already been portrayed through corporate media - in fact, I believe it is wrong and possibly indicative of larger underlying social, economic, political and religious world issues for which I would assert America and Europe are responsible for, past and present.
After clicking the link and reading the actual quote:
I can agree that there is a vague irony. But even if it were pronounced I wouldn't find it funny and don't think you should either.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:58 PM — (Reply)
Here's more irony. You came here furious at our lack of compassion and charity and lashed out at us by showing neither of the qualities you accused us of lacking.
You keep pushing me to concede that I am wrong and you have yet to step up and take responsibility for your part in the blog brawl that has happened here tonight.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 09:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Albert my blog friends and people who read my blog understand I believe the distinction I have drawn. Most of what I have posted on my own blog comes from lots of sources..e.g. Answering Islam.org is a Christian apologetic and answer to Islam. I don't find this to be demonizing Muslims, on the contrary it points to the truth of the Bible.
My blog friends know where I am coming from.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
I can agree with the general content of your blog except for the nationalism and "politely knocking on Taquiyya's door" bit.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 07:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:00 PM — (Reply)
the politley knocking on taqiyya's door is a link to another blog called Clarity and Resolve
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 08:07 PM — (Reply)
I am a 20 year Navy vet I'm not sorry for "nationalism" as you call it
I guess since I have your seal of approval I can continue?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:01 PM — (Reply)
As Cate says emotion is a difficult thing to express on the internet. Comments can be misconstrued to mean one thing and another can be meant altogether....e.g. you misunderstood my comment to Dr. Pino..then I misunderstood your comment here...it happens...we could all use a lighter touch once in awhile
Barry uses a lot of wit and sarcasm and it may come across as hate to you but it's mostly humor with a point
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 09:16 PM — (Reply)
I have to disagree with you there. His "point" is derived from a prejudice (conscious or subconscious) from which he derives his humor. This is the basis from which I identify his Islamophobia and Muslim dehumanizations. It's more of a matter of contending truths.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:44 PM — (Reply)
He just lives to rile people up. That's why he identifies his site as "fake news".
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 09:46 PM — (Reply)
He's like an Ann Coulter on blogHi.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 07:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:02 PM — (Reply)
Albert, I don't have to list my good works. God knows them. And he also knows my frustration with a world where people answer insignificant words with violence or manipulation through the media.
You have been quick to condemn each of us for our frustrations with the current political climate and quick to assume we are hateful people who do no good in the world. I pray He shows you more compassion and mercy than you have shown on this blog tonight.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 07:56 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
hate-filled
Albert,
Why are you just trying to be malicious? I was being serious. No sarcasm that time. I pray God is merciful with all of us. In spite of our humanity and our frustrations and yes, even my sarcastic nature.The fact is that emotion doesn't come through cable internet and you don't know me.
You came here with a holier than thou attitude and have been calling me to repentance for more than an hour now without once acknowledging the ugliness you've dished out.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)
Albert I think if you read more of Cate's site and you took the time to get to know us you may understand better. You may not agree and that's okay, but take the time.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 08:14 PM — (Reply)
Cate's sight is no doubt not as "hate-filled" as I just wrote. It's much less pronounced in terms of quantity, after skimming some of the archives. Barry G is another matter though
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:09 PM — (Reply)
Albert,
I'm still waiting for you to step up and take responsibility for the hate you dished out here tonight. Every time I point that out you jump to another comment.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 09:12 PM — (Reply)
Of course I take responsibility for the blog brawl. I am responsible for every word written here and apologize for the post using the words "hate-filled" to characterize your blog earlier. But I stand by my earlier claim that it is entirely unnecessary in the Christian ethic, and moreover leans towards the demonizing dynamic of Barry G's blog.
This isn't ironic. I don't think compassion and charity have much of a place in an intellectual debate. Refer to Paul's preaching to the Jews in at the end of Romans or, again, Stephen Martyr's preaching to the Pharisees before his death.
In both cases you have one viewpoint which is the argument for Jesus and the truth of Jewish history, whereas in this scenario I'm arguing for a more complete orthodoxy.
So your argument of hypocrisy doesn't stand in my book.
Give me an example where two opposing viewpoints in a debate can find "compassion and charity".
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:24 PM — (Reply)
that's one reason I don't care whether I offend a Christian
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/17 @ 09:26 PM — (Reply)
What is unnecessary? My blog? Okay. I concede. Point for you. Nevertheless, not your choice to make.
Holding a debate without compassion and charity is dehumanizing your adversary, Albert. You've reduced me to a few paragraphs on a nearly deserted stretch of cyberspace. You've attacked the person repeatedly in your effort to condemn the behavior. Isn't that why you got angry with me in the first place?
When Christ condemned Pharisees, do you suppose he was generalizing? He never specifically addressed a subgroup.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 09:38 PM — (Reply)
No, it's the material in this and your next post.
Any disembodiment is by definition dehumanization, Cate. I reacted to a few things: the post, the two initial comments, and your profile picture. These initially stood out to me as being wrong and I wrote out my reasoning why in the following comments. I wrote ad-hominems in 2 posts.
Pharisees are a very select subgroup of the Jewish religious order. Also you're missing the presumed omnipotence of Jesus.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:50 PM — (Reply)
How aboutwe concede that we both reacted adversely to our triggers.
We are both probably on the same side of the issue anyway. You and I both want Muslims to be seen in a better light. Only I want the fanatics to stop doing everything in their power to reinforce negative stereotypes and you want President Bush and I not to generalize and create a hostile environment for innocent Muslims. Got it. I'll make sure my Palestinian friend and her family feel welcome when they come for dinner on Tuesday evening.
Good night, Albert.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 10:01 PM — (Reply)
Okay.
Actually, not really. Not meaning to be polemic, but you're missing the heart of the matter: it's about the individual. Posts like these might seem harmless to you but ultimately, upon the casual surfer like myself, succeeds in harming this "image" than "humorizing" it. Just look at post #6. How would you have responded to "jim" before the discussion? Is there any difference b/t how you would respond now?
Moreover I believe posts like these spawn from a greater, perhaps subconscious, need to create and dehumanize enemies - which is entirely against Jesus' teachings. Look at your Ronald Reagan quote and tell the next person how much of a pacifistic humanist you are. Look at your profile picture and tell me how much you believe in "intellectual compassion and charity".
Do you see what I'm getting at here? The heart affects the rest of the body. It might seem like a subtlety that could be easily glossed over but in reality it's far from the truth. This is why we have to study and discuss and practice and pray as much as we can - this is at least a partial fulfillment of Luke 10:27:
[Paraphrased]
I will argue endlessly against posts like these if I think there's a chance that the message might get through.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 10:34 PM — (Reply)
In any case,
the only "hate" I'm responsible for dishing out towards you was the generalized comment about the blog, which I've already apologized for. Really, I'm sorry for that.
But I stand by my original comment: The work of a few zealots doesn't characterize an entire ethnic group.
People like Barry G don't believe that, and in response I become reactionary to posts that have the same flavor of xenophobic bigotry.
It's up to you to carefully measure the words you use in characterizing the evil perpetrated by the minority, and recognize that even with measured words it most likely will add to the general atomosphere of Muslim hatred generated by W's Tyranny/Terrorism campaign.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:30 PM — (Reply)
I am responsible for what I write, yes.
Comment by Cate— 2006/09/17 @ 09:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/17 @ 08:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/17 @ 09:05 PM — (Reply)
Goodness.... look at all that I've missed out on chiming in on!!
First off: albert, allow me to clarify your grossly misused phraseology.
Ad-hominem does NOT mean appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. Instead, it means "against the person," and is the rather typical logical fallacy of attacking a position, but rather on who holds that position. From what I've read of this discourse, there have been far more accusations of "ad hominem" than actual ad hominem attacks.
I used the term in my own discourse in another thread, and so I'll explain the context where I used it, so next time that you use it, alfred, you'll be better able to convey your meaning.
In my concern about FISA, and the expansion of Presidential power, Cate responded with counter-examples of Lincoln and FDR's expansion, then said "... because it is Bush and the Michael Moore wing has taken over the DNC, it is suddenly not right." To my eyes, her primary counter to my expressed opinion (that Bush's expansion of powers is potentially dangerous) was "Michael Moore thinks that as well. Michael Moore is a nut case, therefore there can't be any validity to your argument."
Whether or not that was what Cate intended, my perception of it was one form of ad hominem attack- not actually discussing the matter, but dismissing it purely because someone (who is presumably uncredible as an opinion-giver) might happen to share the opinion.
Another form, which I have seen only occasionally, is the more personal attack: "You are clearly a nutcase, so anything you say can be disregarded." However, I have to agree with EB and Cate to some extent. You came into this thread, this site, with guns blazing, clearly more intent on wrecking havoc than on engaging in dialog. To that extent, I believe Cate and EB went out of their way to try and determine just what your purpose in being here was.
Logical fallacies strike all of us, but from my own perspective, Cate and EB are most often quite consistent and germaine in their presentations. Tossing around accusations, when you clearly don't even know the meaning of the phrase, is not the way to engage them.
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 09:08 AM — (Reply)
I did come in here with guns blazing, and I argue it is primarily due to the hierarchical conflict of orthodoxy - more specifically that pertaining to nationalism's place (or lack thereof) in Christianity.
I think in the back of my mind, I was hoping to eventually get there, but that clearly never happened.
You make a grammatical error in your last sentence though, Michael, in pretty clear reference to your bias towards Cate and EB (which is understandable).
Perhaps I'll try a more groundwork-based approach next time around.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 06:27 PM — (Reply)
Hey again, albert,
You're correct- once again I a critical clause. If it's any excuse, I'd had too much coffee this morning. I'm sure most of what I was writing was sloppy and not entirely clear. My apologies. Here is the edit:
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 07:09 PM — (Reply)
Jeepers! That should read "You're correct- once again I missed a critical clause." LOL
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 07:15 PM — (Reply)
That should read:
Sorry for the missing clause.
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 09:10 AM — (Reply)
LOL! I'll get it right eventually:
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 09:11 AM — (Reply)
I believe both Cate and I clarified that we both made reactionary errors and I would think this includes my sometimes erroneous usages of ad-hominem accusations.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 11:37 AM — (Reply)
Hi albert!
Since you asked for examples:
Here you seem to use the phrase "ad hominem" to categorize a type of insult. "ad hominem" is a type of logical fallacy, and only really has meaning in reference to arguments or debates. You can certainly insult someone while using an "ad hominem" argument ("You're a moron, so your idea is moronic."), but "ad hominem" is properly used only to describe a flawed argument, not the insult itself.
Next example:
I'm not sure which of Cate's clauses you are asserting an ad hominem fallacy towards.
The first clause is an explanation of why she hasn't responded, not an argument against something you've asserted. There is most certainly an insult contained implicitly, but since she isn't actually arguing against a position of yours, merely stating a reason why she has not yet responded, that clause can not truly be considered an "ad hominem" fallacy.
Her second clause comes closer to ad hominem, as she does seem to rebut with a questioning of you, rather than an answer to your challenge. However,your challenge to her was:
She clearly has a valid argument to call into question what authority or expertise you might have to define orthodoxy.
Your rebuttal, one that would prove her statement to be an "ad hominem" fallacy, would be to demonstrate in reply that your position in helping define Christian orthodoxy is well-established and non-refutable. For example, if you were the Pope. If, in fact, you do have a clearly established reason to assert orthodoxy (and I won't assume that you don't), and you have reasonable cause to believe that Cate should also be aware of that, then yes- this could qualify as an "ad hominem" fallacy. However, since you, yourself admitted:
Then her argument was not "ad hominem," but rather a questioning of your credentials- a legitimate argument.
Third:
I can charitably read that as just using "ad hominem" as a generic reference to her previous post (where she points out how you've come in, tossing around accusations of "ad hominem attacks"). If that's the case, then it is merely a label, and not an inaccurate use of the phrase.
If you meant to apply the term "ad hominem" as a rebuttal of the post itself, however, you again misuse the phrase. Cate, instead of countering your point of view by attacking you as a person, asks what your motivations are and why you come into the discussion seemingly intent on causing dissention. Logically, her post is an irrelevancy, not an "ad hominem," and it is only irrelevant to whatever your point of view is.
Her post was not irrelevant in a social context, however. She had questioned your motivations, and legitimately doubted that you had any true desire to enter into a dialog. That she would point out how you were coming across to her was a social nicety- not an attack. She was giving you a clear indication that you were being a rude guest.
Here Cate uses the phrase in something closer to its true meaning:
Ironically, the fact that you, albert, have no sense of humor is actually somewhat relevant because she is pointing out that some of her comments are facetious, and so should not be taken seriously. A better "ad hominem" attack would be "When you learn what 'ad hominem' means, THEN I'll consider your opinion."
Fourth:
"ad hominem" is NOT a personal attack. "ad hominem" is NOT (necessarily) an insult. "ad hominem" is flawed logic... As cited above, unless you are the Pope, or some other authority that Cate should have known about, Cate did not dismiss your opinion with an "ad hominem" fallacy.
Five:
By this point in the dialog, the discussion has degenerated so far, that I can't even see what it is that you're referring to. Sadly, even at this stage, I don't easily see any of Cate's appeals as being "ad hominem" in nature. Instead, she is continually asking for social decorum, a tact that you continue to refuse to give her. Perhaps you feel justified in insulting her and chastising her, but the fact that she takes offense at that is not an 'ad hominem' fallacy. It is basic courtesy.
Six:
Quite honestly, by this point, I have NO idea even what you're referring to as "ad hominem," except that whatever it is, you're wrong.
Through this whole thread, the only time anyone actually engaged in something approaching "ad hominem" fallacy, was when EB wrote:
and Cate wrote:
THAT is a form of "ad hominem." By associating you with Noam Chomsky, someone who (at least between EB and Cate) is implicitly just "wrong," all of your opinions could be summarily dismissed.
Of course, you respond with "ad verecundiam":
Do those examples help clear up where you've misused the phrase, and perhaps give you a better understanding of what "ad hominem" means? If you like, I can send you links to basic logical fallacies.
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 01:11 PM — (Reply)
So under the broader definition, the accepted definition actually tends more towards being a personal insult lacking a basis of reasoning.
So some better examples of word usage would have been:
I'll definitely be paying more attention to my usage in the near future. Thanks Michael
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 06:08 PM — (Reply)
AFAIC Cate has shown no interest in doing so, and is thereby dogmatic in her positions - which I believe is contrary to Christian intellectualism.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 11:44 AM — (Reply)
Whether Cate wishes to attain a complete Christian orthodoxy or not is up to her. If you were on the front step of her house, she'd be entirely within her rights to slam her door in your face. That she has continually tried to actually engage you in dialog, despite your odious and offensive manner, is a credit to her charitable spirit.
Comment by Michael— 2006/09/18 @ 01:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/18 @ 04:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)