Many of the deathes occurred in Afghanistan after our good friend Afghan President Hamid Karzai helped things along by highlighting the Florida incident. The dead include United Nations workers. Karzai has been using any opportunity lately to denounce the United States and express sympathy for the Taliban — while insisting that we continue our spending of billions in his country.
Most Afghans were unaware of the incident on March 20th until Karzai made it the focus of a recent speech.
Jones is an example of how anyone can call himself a preacher and the head of a church — even though he seems to have only a handful of followers. He has expressed no regrets: “It was intended to stir the pot; if you don’t shake the boat, everyone will stay in their complacency.”
The fact is that Jones’ hateful act is protected speech in this country. Despite Obama’s support for an international blasphemy resolution, we remain committed to free speech — even speech that others find insulting and sacrilegious. He was roundly denounced in his country and has lost most of the small number of people in his church. Yet, I will not join those blaming him for this violence. It is a mistake to blame unpopular speakers for such mob responses. It is the fault of these murderous extremists. What Jones is responsible for is his own act of hateful desecration. Instead of showing that it is Jones who is the extremist and the symbol of intolerance, these Muslim extremists have played into dreams of anti-Muslims like Jones.
Source: Yahoo
Stamford Liberal 1, April 6, 2011 at 10:32 am
“You falsely accuse me of hating liberals”
Gee, doesn’t everyone show their affection by calling others scumbags, evil, depraved, stupid, ignorant, blah, blah, blah?
################################
No, “everyone” does not show affection by name-calling in the demeaning sense.
Since when did self-disrespect become affection?
Not so very long ago, I bought a birthday present for my wife, a book. Harry Bernstein, “The Invisible Wall,” Ballantine Books, 2008.
On one side of a street lived the Bernstein family, the Harris family, and other Jews; on the other side of the street lived the Forshaw family, the Turnbull family, and other Christians. Harry’s oldest sister, Lily, fell in love with Arthur Forshaw and Arthur Forshaw fell in love with Lily, and they became married.
Arthur Forshaw and Lily Bernstein were able to cross that invisible wall because, except as mere imagination, there never was and never will be such a wall — or so I have always observed.
While I find I am an insignificant person to whatever extent anyone else is insignificant, I also find that I am a significant person to the same extent as anyone else is significant.
Therefore, I do not, and can not, make myself or my life more significant than otherwise by working to make someone else less significant than I am.
Neither can I make myself or my life less significant by working to make someone else more significant than I am.
I have no need to “play king of the mountain” by trashing other people, other people’s experiences, or other people’s beliefs.
I do evaluations of events and I make no judgments in doing evaluations. It is my evaluation of social competition that people who have been taught aspects of self disrespect which I never learned may use psychological defenses which are of attempts to demean other people as a way of avoiding dealing with one’s own sense of personal validity or personal invalidation.
No one has ever been able to teach me that I am in any useful way exceptional, whether for good or for bad.
If people destructively compete with each other, is anything achievable other than a plunge to the bottom of the pit of unrelenting retaliation?
I disagree with myself far more than I disagree with anyone else; I simply spend more time with myself than anyone else, and so have far more experiences of self than of others and more experiences of self with which to disagree than of others.
I cannot know or understand anything my life experiences have not allowed me to learn, for want of my having been given the required learning experiences. I find this to be true no matter who else, who has had experiences not exactly identical with mine, may have learned which I have been unable to learn.
Is it really that different for me than for anyone else?
Perhaps the invisible wall is not down the middle of a street, but down the middle of many, if not most, individual people?
Perhaps the invisible wall separates what people say from what people do?
Perhaps the invisible wall separates what people know from what people understand?
Perhaps the invisible wall does not exist except as a mistaken belief?
For over seventy years, I have heard people say, “We are not like them.” Only, “they” say the same thing about us…
I am one of them, and not one of us; only they are us, and we are they and they are we; and the little piggy cried “we we we, all the way home?
I voted yesterday in Wisconsin.
I voted for recognition of the non-existence of invisible walls.
Buddha:
Oh I see, only you can slap on labels? Well, that is more like pre-school thinking than any thing I’m doing. And you are not going to get me to stop it just because you think you own the sandbox. You are simply having a tantrum because I am not going to let you slap these labels on me without some blow-back headed your way.
So get used to it, junior. You can stop it with the false accusations anytime you wish and we can proceed with the issues. Or we can play you game. I’m up for it.
For you to stop it would take a certain level of competence on your part and you appear to not have enough of that to bring it to fruition. Another example of your inabilities is demonstrated by your stupid conclusion that it is bigotry to call a bigot a bigot. Or in your words:
“As I’ve already told you, being a bigot against bigots like yourself isn’t a character flaw.”
This isn’t shocking news, but isn’t bigotry to tell the truth. And if you are telling the truth about me (which you are not) then you are not being a bigot by saying so.
I know a person of your moral character might find this confusing, but I assure you that it isn’t necessary for you to invent a new thing like “acceptable bigotry” for you to get out of the little mess you just put yourself in. Totally unnecessary. Now that you have confessed your sin: go and sin no more.
Bigotry is bad no matter what and you need not invent a new category for it, put yourself into it, and then claim it is a good thing just to justify your being bigoted. No one of any respectable philosophical reputation that I know of has promoted the idea of a good bigotry. I don’t believe you are trail-blazing a new moral code. You might need to get over yourself. It appears that you are merely confusing yourself because of your own ignorance of the meaning of the word bigotry.(And I have pointed this out to you several times).
If you are telling the truth about me, then you are not being a bigot.
And you just admitted to the world you are a bigot (which has been my contention all along). Thanks for the honesty. It confirms I was correct all along and the insults I received from as a result of the charge I laid against you were unwarranted. And you may think (I’m sure you do) that I have enough “sins” to warrant anything you have charged against me. But, by your own admission here, it likely proves you wrong on that.
Soon, you will be telling me it is OKAY for you to be a racist because you think I am one.
As crazy as it would be for one to believe that one can be a bigot for telling the truth (according to your new moral theory), it goes a long way in explaining why you think I am a bigot though I am not.
You don’t even know when bigotry should or should not apply to yourself let alone to others.
You are extremely confused.
Stamford Liberal: You included a quote in your post:
Una Moore, a development professional based in Afghanistan, wrote on UN Dispatch on Friday that the reaction to Jones in Mazar-i-Sharif marks “the end” of the international community’s involvement in Afghanistan
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if we had to thank Pastor Jones for ending the Afghan War?
Anonymously Yours,
“So Tootie what you are really saying is that you are now chicken shit…good metaphor….”
First good laugh of the day … thanks, AY!!
“You falsely accuse me of hating liberals”
Gee, doesn’t everyone show their affection by calling others scumbags, evil, depraved, stupid, ignorant, blah, blah, blah?
I think I will when I see my kid later, I will show her the love by calling her a no-good, lazy, evil feminazilesbosocialfascistislamascumbag … and give her a big hug!
Awwww. Isn’t that cute! “I know you are but what am I?” Tootles, have you been taking argument lessons from pre-schoolers again?
As I’ve already told you, being a bigot against bigots like yourself isn’t a character flaw. The difference being that I admit I’m bigoted against bigots and being biased against bad behavior – namely bigotry – is by definition good behavior. You may call it bigotry, but most sane people call being against bigots exercising both good conscience and proper ethically based discrimination.
Buddha:
I told it to a bigot: you.
AY
Are you deranged?
Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones defends himself against Bill O’Reilly who called him ‘insane’
BY NANCY DILLON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/04/05/2011-04-05_koranburning_pastor_terry_jones_defends_himself_against_bill_oreilly_who_called_.html#ixzz1IkSKnUDT
Tootles,
Tell it to somebody unfamiliar with your bigoted screes.
So Tootie what you are really saying is that you are now chicken shit…good metaphor….
Buddha:
I want Doobie to sell his/her chicken without reservation, as I reserve the right to sell mine whenever I choose.
Doobie says he/she will sell chicken to me only if I first sell chicken to Doobie. But I never sold any chicken to Doobie and yet Doobie has forced his chicken down my throat and demanded that I buy it.
“If you continue to judge other people, then you might want to stop acting like it is something bad except when you do it.”
Part of comedy is not just the words, but the speaker.
The comic exaggeration here comes from the blatant hypocrisy of the speaker.
“If you continue selling fried chicken, then you might want to stop acting like it is something bad except when you do it,” said Colonel Sanders to Popeye.
See how that works?
Doobie
You wrote: “I don’t judge your thing if you don’t judge my thing.”
I never judged “your thing” heretofore (not that I recall) but yet you just judged me (e.g. You falsely accuse me of hating liberals). So are you lying to me? How could you judge me unless I had already judged you? When did I do that? Have I even ever “met” you before on this blog? If I have, I surely don’t remember.
And I don’t mind your judging me either. You seem to be the only one between us who is bothered by the idea of judging.
If you continue to judge other people, then you might want to stop acting like it is something bad except when you do it.
And regarding your false accusation that I hate liberals? My response to that is to ask you to PLEASE stop lobbing invectives at me.
Doobie:
It is mighty arrogant of you to assume I hate sinners. If you loved me you wouldn’t have made that mistake.
“And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war).” Surah 4:24, the Koran.
In other words, Osama bin Laden can have sex with your wife if he captures her and it is considered virtuous, according to Allah. Then he can sell her to his friends.
That is Islam and the kind of stuff Democrats get excited about and defend.
Doobie a Dont Be
“You have lost all credibility and are on the same level as Stamford Liberal with your vile invective.”
Yeah, uh … Taliban Tootie and I are on nowhere near the same level. I’m not a coward who hides behind religion to justify my dislike of someone – I make my dislike of people like Taliban known, on my own, not because some old white guy in the sky tells me so.
I will also point out that I’m just giving Taliban back what she dishes out … but your “concern” is duly noted …
Tootie:
love the sinner, hate the sin. Liberals aren’t bad people, they just have bad ideas and that is my personal opinion. There is a huge difference. Hell some conservatives are very bad people but they have good ideas. I think I would like to hang out with good people who have bad ideas rather than bad people who have good ideas.
At least you know the good person is just misguided, but the bad person might have an ulterior motive.
You might be a good person, but it seems like you aren’t even though you have some good ideas. You have lost all credibility and are on the same level as Stamford Liberal with your vile invective. You and SL are just the same coin but a different side.
Jilted lover? Death of a child? What caused the hatred for liberals? Republicons have caused a good deal of pain and suffering as well. Why don’t you hate them too?
Personally I am afraid of evangelical Christians, they are a scary bunch and would only be allies of the fundamentalist Muslims. Until they started fighting over whose God was superior. Which is a joke because there could be more than one God and if there is a God it might be the one God so everyone is praying to the being anyway. The entire religion thing is rather hard to follow.
Why cant we all just be human beings first? And agree that we all have different ideas about everything and the best way to be a human being is in an atmosphere of peace and freedom. And I don’t mean freedom from want but freedom. As in I do my thing and you do your thing, I don’t judge your thing if you don’t judge my thing. I also don’t want you preventing me from doing my thing and I wont prevent you from doing yours. As long as my thing doesn’t harm anyone and respects other people’s right to do their thing.
Seems to me the golden rule works in many cases and it isn’t just for religion.
“Terry Jones, the radical pastor who oversaw the burning of a Koran in his Florida church last month after a mock court hearing, may put the Islamic prophet Mohammed on trial in his next ‘day of judgement’”
Back in the Middle Ages Jewish scholars were forced to “debate” Christian scholars on the “truth” of each religion. It was of course an impossible situation for the Jewish Scholar involved because rhetorical punches had to be “pulled” or he would be guilty of blasphemy. Invariably, but not unexpectedly the Christian Theologian always “won.” Sometimes, not always though, the Jew was put to death for his “blasphemy.” Different methods, but the fundamentalist nonsense from all sides is little changed today.