…don’t punch him in the nose. Show him this AP photo (See update below. This is only a mock stoning scene.). I can’t tell exactly what’s going on in the photo, but an Iranian girl was beaten for crying rape :
“The girl was sentenced to 100 lashes because her accusations of rape and kidnap could have landed her partners a death penalty, the Tehran judge said….Sex outside marriage is illegal in Iran and capital punishment can be imposed….
Under Iranian law, girls over the age of nine and boys over 16 face the death penalty for crimes such as rape and murder, while capital punishment can be imposed in certain cases of illegal sexual relationships.” (Source)
Good grief. Look how draconian and imbalanced these laws are! You can be subject to execution for murder and fornication?
I get so darn tired of reading liberal pulp and hearing liberals whine about “intolerant” conservatives or self-righteous, homophobic Christians or “racist” America. But since those maniacal, murdering Muslim thugs attacked our country not too long ago, I don’t hear much of the “all cultures are equal” tripe anymore.
We live in the greatest, wealthiest, most humane country on the planet, full of blessed freedom and opportunity beyond belief, and ungrateful brats still complain, shamelessly comparing America to evil freaks who’d like nothing better than to see our heads rolling across the floor. Black Americans, especially, have the unmitigated gall to cry racism at every slight, seemingly ignorant of how life really is in other parts of the world. Racism is natural to sinful man, all of humanity, but at least in the United States there are laws against it, and people bend over backward to avoid such charges. Good grief.
It makes me sick.
Update: KelliPundit says: “I’ve read other reports that describe this process [stoning] in Iran; and women who have been sentenced to death by stoning are buried to their necks. If you look, those are broken pieces of brick around her head.”
Catez says: “The photo is an Iranian demonstrator doing a mock-up of a stoning scene.”
Well, the drama just got sucked right out of that photo, but the sentiment expressed in this post is still the same: Anti-America Americans make me ill.
Update II: Being on the blogroll and “daily reads” list of a blogger serving in Iraq makes me very proud. Thank you for serving our country, “Mustang 23!”
Smash is having a “Patriots’ Picnic.”
Update III: If you want to know what a real stoning looks like, follow the link. I haven’t seen it. (Hat tip: Allthings2all)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 67 comments }
Touche!
What a refreshing and timely post!
That’ll preach.
Go tell it on the mountain! Needs to reecho across the nation.
Sing it, gal, sing it!
Hi La Shawn,
The photo is an Iranian demonstrator doing a mock-up of a stoning scene. (put your mouse over the photo in the BBC article and the description pops up). God bless. Oh – and it was nice seeing those photos of you and the other bloggers in your other posts.
LaShawn,
I saw this earlier and do not believe the picture is related specifically to the story. What I see is a picture of a woman being stoned. I’ve read other reports that describe this process in Iran; and women who have been sentenced to death by stoning are buried to their necks. If you look, those are broken pieces of brick around her head. That’s my 2 cents.
La Shawn,
I’m fairly consistent when I brand many Christians intolerant. I’ve also given many Muslims and Jews the verbal smack they deserve when said intolerance is displayed.
Note, however, I am not intolerant of their intolerance. They’ll just have to tolerate my criticisms. Whew…there certainly is a lot of back-and-forth with the whole tolerance issue.
Like I said in regards to yesterday’s God and CPAC thread, the difference between the intolerance displayed by Christian extremists and Muslims extremists is that the Muslims usually promote their intolerance through various forms of murder and violence.
I think the photo is still dramatic, albeit a mock up. It strikes me as quite powerful because it is an Iranian doing it – howzat for speaking up! And also it probably is a pretty good depiction of what happens.
A real picture of a woman about to be stoned can be seen here;
http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/iran/iran.htm
A “NO to Political Islam Campaign” against Sharia:
http://www.ntpi.org/html/publicpunishment.html
An insurgent (real McCoy, not MSM’s def for Zarqawi & friends) webpage against the Iranian Mullahocracy:
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=08&d=27&a=6
An Iranian female lawyer writes about Iranian Penal Codes to restructure society on the basis of violence and sexual apartheid.
http://www.iran-bulletin.org/political_islam/punishmnt.html
A discussion of whether such atrocities will take place in Canada is here:
http://www.web.ca/~jharnick2/shariala.html
All of the above have plenty of pictures that bear witness to the barbarity of Sharia and the misogynist men who wield the law.
What was that comment Gen. Mattis said about killing these lowlifes in battle? “A good sharian is a dead one”?
Where are the feminists? They make me embarassed that I ever was associated with them.
I’m sorry; I forgot. If the woman had been denied an abortion before she was stoned, the feminists would protest that.
Has anyone been able to determine why they made this picture? Why would you “fake” this event?
Baron
Baron – I believe it was a mock stoning probably done in protest. The picture itself isn’t fake.
Show this photo to hollywood peaceniks and lets them think about their ridiclous movment they support such acts with their being such dip-wads
LaShawn,
Stoning is truly uncivilized and barbaric, especially how it is maliciously applied to the victims of crime in order to protect the perpetrator. Clearly, their system of justice is warped. Of course, not all Muslims subscribe to this brand of Islam, but it certainly is the dominant strain in the Middle East. This medieval strain of Islam needs a Reformation.
This is something liberals and conservatives can agree on… highlighting human rights should be above partisan bickering. Even for us liberals who initially opposed the war, human rights abuse must be vigorously addressed…
But one question: why do you go out of your way to use this most horrific act of injustice, and twist it to fit your narrow agenda of cavalier, random liberal bashing… I mean really…must every event and newstory be morphed into
your campaign to prove how “godless” us liberals are?
It depends on my mood, Jab. “Cavalier, random liberal bashing” has a nice ring to it. Tread lightly if you respond to me directly. I’m in the same mood I was in yesterday- Admin
La Shawn,
Thanks for the Kind Comments. You are on my daily reads for a good reason. Keep up the good work.
what does this whole thing have to do with being an “anti-american american?”
You can be really obtuse sometimes, Actus. – Admin
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives in America are all offended by the extreme form of barbaric “justice” practiced in some countries, including but not limited to Islamic “republics.” Liberal columnist Nicolas Kristof in the “liberal” New York Times has done as much as anyone in America to bring bring attention to the Moslem-Arab genocide against Moslem non-Arab Blacks in Sudan. For example his February 23 story, The Secret Genocide Archive:
(OK, this is not about the judicial system or sex per se, but it is just one example of liberal outrage against Moslem barbarism.)
Nobody in the United States (or almost nobody) wants to point fingers at a regime like Iran and say, “Yeah, they’re my kind of people! We need to make America more like that!” But guess what? Islamic “justice” has a lot more in common with American conservatism than American liberalism. Conservatism, not liberalism, believes in harsh punishment for victimless crimes. The Supreme Court recently overturned the Bowers v. Hardwick decision of 1986, in which it ruled 5-4 that that nothing in the Constitution “would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy.” In Lawrence & Garner v. State of Texas, the Supreme Court overturned this decision 6-3, ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In both decisions, it was the conservatives, not the liberals supporting government intrusion into the most private and intimate aspects of people’s lives.
It was liberals who led the fight to abolish laws against interracial marriage. It was liberals who led the fight to allow unmarried women to have access to contraceptives. And today, conservatives more than liberals believe in long prison sentences for victimless crimes such as private use of marijuana. In fact, conservatives such as former Attorney General Ashcroft are stonewalling the right of people to use marijuana when prescribed by a doctor for medical use.
Conservative president Ronald Reagan said he wanted to get the government off the backs of the American people. Right. And into their bedrooms.
Let me hop on the bandwagon. It was LIBERALS who fought for a woman’s “right” to have her baby murdered. It was LIBERALS who fought for and continue to fight for lowered standards for us poor, black folks. You know, the legacy of slavery and all. Thanks to LIBERALS, the government continues to categorize citizens by skin color, only this time, we poor black folks are the beneficiaries of their paternalistic concern. It was godless LIBERALS who kicked God out of government schools while allowing their own gods to remain. I’ve got news for them. God LAUGHS, knowing what their “reward” will be.
Swell guys, those LIBERALS. – Admin
The American people have rejected liberal anything goes no-standards ‘tolerance’.
The American people have rejected liberal anything goes no-standards racism and gender bias of blacks and females that don’t accept their anything goes no-standards ‘tolerance’.
The American people have rejected liberal anything goes no-standards ‘tolerance’ of violations of our country’s borders with illegal crossings and visa overstays.
The American people have rejected liberal anything goes no-standards ‘intolerance’ of its own country and its judeo-christian standards, history, and heritage. Relentless never-a-positive-word the-cup-is-always-half-empty america-sucks criticism.
Yes, the American people have become ‘intolerant’ of liberal ‘tolerance’. Your behavior has defeated you in all three branches of the federal government and the largest majority of states.
But don’t change the insanity on our account. Keep repeating the same behaviors over and over again, expecting a different outcome.
“You can be really obtuse sometimes, Actus. – Admin”
Do anti-american american’s not believe in women’s rights? And If I don’t have the picture handy, can i then punch them on the nose?
I believe I explained myself adequately enough for people to discern my meaning, actus. Let me ask you a question: Do you frequent liberal blogs as much as you hang out here?
“Let me ask you a question: Do you frequent liberal blogs as much as you hang out here?”
Of course. Perhaps you should too. Its a real eye opener.
Perhaps not. Do you comment on these blogs? If so, which ones?
When liberals hear about people getting “stoned” they think of marijauna not actual rocks that are thrown to kill.
Seems to me when anti-Americans support the Iraqi insurgents, the picture that comes to mind are fattened turkeys awaiting a Thanksgiving slaughter.
Simply put, they are incapable of making logical associations with reality, especially a reality they’d rather ignore. Got a problem, obviously more money or PC understanding needs to be thrown at it, nevermind if the solution is just flat out wrong, we can buy our way out of any mess.
Iragi purple fingers=Nazi salutes.
Sharia law=Multi-culti
Islamofascist=Freedom fighters (freedom fighters? how oxymoronic is that?)
“I mean really…must every event and newstory be morphed into your campaign to prove how “godless†us liberals are?”
Simple, when you take God out of the picture, you allow evil to proliferate under the banner of moral equivalence and cultural relativity.
“Perhaps not. Do you comment on these blogs? If so, which ones? ”
I like j. bradford delong. I like max sawicki. I like washingtonmonthly, and sometimes kos and atrios.
Dear Anomalocaris,
Isn’t the issue a little more complex?
On the one hand, your analogy doens’t hold up in one crucial respect: conservatives don’t believe in stoning homosexuals, couples who use contraceptives, and the like.
On the other hand, a conservative could agree with you that certain acts shouldn’t be criminalized—Justice Thomas himself said that the Texas statute was absurd—but then insist that, even if we shouldn’t criminalize those acts, they might still be immoral.
The idea that “consensual sex” can be immoral on account of the nature of the sex acts may seem strange at first. But there are many other areas in which we agree that just because people consent don’t make it right. For example, the Vietnamese worker agrees to work for 10 cents an hour—but it doesn’t follow that he’s not being exploited.
Which leads me to another point. There’s no such thing as “victimless crime.” Take the example of Marijuana. Ok, the kid downstairs who’s puffing a joint isn’t doing physical damage to another person at that very moment. But what if he’s a stoner? Doesn’t his being a stoner affect a whole lot of other people? And, suppose he isn’t a stoner, suppose he’s a good boy who’s trying weed just once and won’t ever do it again: think of all that goes into the production, shipping, selling, and consumption of pot—a lot of violence and corruption, which our young friend is now participating in. Think of refusing to smoke pot as a form of boycotting: you’re not going to participate in a corrupt system.
Yes, if Marijuana is legalized, the corrupt system might change. But my point is not tied to this specific example.
My point is (1) that we remain connected with one another in a million ways, whether we’re alone in our bedrooms or walking down a crowded street; and(2) every free act, even one performed in our own privacy, makes us to be persons of a certain kind, and so affects everyone we come in contact with, if not at that moment, then somewhere down the road.
To think that our free acts can be purely private, with no connection to anyone or anything else, is to think that they have no significance in the world outside of us, which is to think that they have no significance at all.
Adrian
Adrian, long time no read.
Andy writes “when you take God out of the picture, you allow evil to proliferate under the banner of moral equivalence and cultural relativity.” The constitutional framers began the First Amendment this way: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus, all Americans are free to worship, or not worship, their gods and goddesses as they see fit. There are good people of all faiths, and of no faith. Devout people and atheists alike sometimes commit evil acts. But the main thing is to uphold the Constitution, and let each of us find our own way with our gods.
Moral equivalence and cultural relativity? These terms seem to have special significance to conservatives, used to describe bad things liberals supposedly believe in and do. But conservatives are at least as inclined as liberals to believe in and practice moral relativism. Moral absolutism says “Killing innocent people is wrong.” But under the moral relativism of the Bush administration, It’s ok to use shock and awe that has killed thousands and thousands of innnocent iraqis (and over 1,400 U.S. soldiers) to topple an evil regime that, in fact, did not have any connection whatsoever to the attacks of 9/11/2001 and also possessed no WMD — as reported in the Duelfer Report. Under the moral relativism of conservatives, lying about fellatio is impeachable, but lying that leads to a $300 billion off-budget war that kills thousands of American soldiers is just fine. Under the moral relativism of conservatives, killing a two-hour-old human embryo is murder, but dangerous levels of air pollution that kill living breathing adults is just fine.
Moral relativism is easy to see in others and easy to explain away in in ourselves. Take the plank out of your own eye, Andy.
Hey, Andy—thanks for the welcome. Hope you’ve been well.
Dear Anomalocaris,
Let’s admit for the sake of the argument that conservatives cynically manipulate talk of “moral relativism” to their own advantage. If so, it doesn’t change a whit the basic question: is there is is there not such a thing as right and wrong? We can’t answer No and still say that cynical manipulation is a bad thing.
As for the issue of God and morality, we’d have to settle first how high a standard of right and wrong we’re holding ourselves to when we say we don’t need God to be good.
Cheers,
Adrian
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.â€
IOW, Congregress shall make no law to establish a religion, nor prevent people from excercising it.
That means no Church of America, like the Church of England, or at the other end of the god spectrum, a mullahocracy. That would also mean no church of secularism, of which the ACLU are clery.
Seems to me the question is how do we let people excercise their religion w/o creating a governmental apparatus to enforce A religion? To let all comers talk and practice their religion when & where they please?
If a town wants to put up a 10 commandment monument, more power to ‘em. If kids want to have a Bible club, by all means do so. After all if the gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgendered crowd can use school clubs to proselytize kids, why not Christians? If the gays don’t like the Boy Scouts, then go start the Gay Scouts — it’s a free world.
But that not how secularists see it, their god is an extremely jealous god who came up from below to issue his 10 commandments.
I. Thou shalt have any gods but that God before me.
II. Thou shalt not place any engravings that mention that God in the public square.
III. Thou shalt take the name of that LORD their God in vain.
IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it for your pleasure.
V. Thy father and thy mother as conservatives are idiots.
VI. Thou shalt not kill death row inmates; abortion and pulling the feeding tube is ok.
VII. Thou shalt not keep your vows, if it feels good, break it.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, unless you’re disadvantaged.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour without repeating it ad nauseum IAW Gobbel’s Law.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour’s, if you want it, ask Robin Hood to redistribute.
Anyway, Anom, please continue to feed us the secular line. Your comments ensure that we’re not talking to ourselves in some echo chamber, rooted instead in reality. Plus, why bother having our IP show up on some dreck website, when you can bring us their message in a cleaned up form.
Anom, sorry I missed the import of your last two paragraphs. My eyes sort of glazed over about the time I hit Moral absolutism says “Killing innocent people is wrong.†But under the moral relativism of the Bush administration, It’s ok to use shock and awe that…
After rereading the rest of your diatribe, I can only respond “fzzzztp”. If you really believe all that, then static in your attic is causing your gray matter to misfire. Your tinfoil hat has been so nippered, if you stuck a light bulb in it, you could crack the Da Vinci code from the pattern cast on the ceiling.
But I hope you do continue to enlighten us 1st hand with what the moonbats think.
Anom, one more thing, Colin Powell has an in-depth interview coming out tomorrow that says our going to Iraq was the right thing to do. Guess the moonbats will be sure to twist his words to prove Bush lied=people died
click on my name
Jim R: “The American people have rejected liberal anything goes no-standards ‘tolerance’.” This is a complete distortion of liberalism. Liberalism is not “anything goes” and liberalism is not a rejection of all standards. Liberalism is respect for individual dignity and individual rights; liberalism is protection of the rights of minorities and the weak; liberalism recognizes webs of interdependence. But liberalism in not “anything goes.” Liberals lock up rapists, murderers and thieves just like conservatives. In fact, John Kerry was a prosecutor before he ran for Congress. Liberalism believe in standards just as conservatives do; you can’t just call yourself a doctor or a lawyer; you have to pass the exams first. As for border control, one of America’s more liberal senators, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), is also one of the most outspoken on the issue of border control. So don’t go blaming a lack of border control on liberals; this issue cuts strange paths across the normal liberal-conservative spectrum. And don’t be accusing liberals of lacking standards; it’s just not true.
Dear Andy:
You said, “Seems to me when anti-Americans support the Iraqi insurgents. . . .”
That would not be me, nor any of the people I work with. We are loyal Americans, and whatever we think of the wisdom of the war in Iraq, or the lies that were told to convince Congress and the American people to support it, we hope and pray every day that the violence will end and that the new democracy will continue to take hold.
President Bush said “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” Liberals reject that kind of thinking. It is possible to disagree with President Bush and with his approach to fighting terrorism without being on the side of the terrorists. Not only that, it is possible to disagree with his decision to go to war in Iraq, but accept that, now that we are there, we cannot simply walk away from the mess we have made.
Liberals and Conservatives alike are patriotic and love America. Andy, it is beneath you to suggest that liberals hate America. If you hope to win people to your cause, I strongly advise you to drop that argument.
Respectfully,
Dear Adrian,
You are right, the issue is complex. You’re also right that Islamic “chop-off-hands-of-thieves” justice is far more barbaric than what conservatives advocate for american criminals. (But, the conservative Bush administration is outsourcing torture to Syria, where they have it down pat. Bob Herbert in the New York Times has been reporting on this in several recent columns. See “Thrown to the Wolves” at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/opinion/25herbert.html?ex=1267074000&en=89c507c68d703d67&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland for his most recent installment.)
Here’s the point: Fundamentalist Islamic justice has a lot more in common with the vision of justice of American conservatives than the vision of justice of American liberals. That’s all. Of course, I would much rather live under American conservative justice than under fundamentalist Islamic justice, and you’re right, there is a big difference between the two.
I agree with you that as long as drugs such as marijuana are illegal, purchasing marijuana means supporting an illegal network, which is criminal by definition. But to use that fact as an argument that marijuana use should be criminal is circular reasoning. (You seem to recognize this.)
And I agree with you that, as you put it, “we remain connected with one another in a million ways.” But liberals believe that there is a zone of privacy, and some things should stay in that zone. Sex between adults and minors is always a crime. Sex between adults, in privacy, not in exchange for money, better grades, job opportunities, etc. — that’s in the zone of privacy. Of course there are always “Yes buts.” Yes, but if one of the parties to the act is married to a third party, well there are civil (but not criminal) issues there. But the basic principle, a basic right to privacy — this is a high moral value cherished by most liberals and many conservatives as well.
Respectfully,
though complaints about the problems in america do run far and wide and are often excessive, aren’t many of them still legitimate?
the fact that i may complain about racism in america does not mean that i am unaware of the virtual genocide occuring in regions of africa or the complete subjugation of the female gender in other parts of the world. nor does it mean that i am ungrateful for the freedoms and liberties i am granted.
can’t it just mean that i believe we can do better? and that i am not satisfied and content with the progress AMERICA has made?
furthermore, just because the degree of freedom and the extent of access and opportunity i have in America is far greater than my middle-eastern or african counterpart does not make the injustices that DO occur in America unimportant or insignificant, and it doesn’t make them okay.
if i’m on welfare and living in a destitute neighborhood near crappy schools and drive through white suburbia everyday to clean some lady’s house and break my back for minimum wage, reminded of the life that i am unable to live because a lack of access to REAL resources and opportunities, do you HONESTLY expect me to think to myself, “well, at least minimum wage exists in America! how egalitarian!” come on now, walk a mile in that person’s shoes, and see if you will have the strength or optimism to think that way day in and day out…
if we can achieve better, then why not achieve better?
on another note, i think all the “whining” you may hear from liberals about intolerant conservatives and homophobic or racist WASP’s results from the popular belief/myth? that the American majority is very accepting and open to other peoples’ differences. many people, specifically those whiners you refer to, experience a completely different reality and are sick of self-righteous Americans who spew their pharisaical schpiels day and night. we are SUPPOSED to be built on foundations of liberty and equality, and i refuse to knock anybody who is frustrated with the perpetuation of an American history that is often romanticized and made into a fairy tale…
FINALLY, reading your reference to another group of people as “evil freaks” and as “maniacal” is surprising. i am not condoning, supporting, or justifying stoning or terrorist groups, but seriously, man…RELATIVITY is key here. america has been no angel, we have inflicted damage upon them, and have conducted ourselves in ways that many cultures vehemently disagree with– in their eyes, we are the evil freaks, the maniacal murderers.
I never wrote that my beloved country was clean and innocent, but if it were bad as people say it is, I don’t think they’d be clamoring to get here. We have millions of illegal aliens all over the place, which is a good segue to my biggest complaint about the US: It’s seemingly hamstrung and too clumsy to tackled its rampant and costly illegal border jumper problem properly. Blame goes directly to the White House.
Aside from that, I will not trash my country, and my opinion of people who do still holds. I will continue to speak out against anti-America Americans and tell them what’s on my mind. I suggest you stop visiting this blog (I suspect you’re a new reader) and go find one where “relativity” is preached. Your being surprised at my penchant for calling a thing what it is indicates that you are indeed new to this blog, because I do it every day. And I don’t need to take one step in ANYBODY’S shoes to know how hard life can be, so can that suggestion right now.
All that jive about lack of opportunity is hogwash, and frankly, I can’t stand to hear or read it.
Part of the reason I have this blog is to provide a forum for my faith, political ideology, as well as to express frustration about the unmanly men and wimps in this country.
Thanks for the lecture, though, but I hope you don’t plan on giving me another one, at least not today.
Dear Anomalocaris,
Thanks for your reply. Just a couple of points:
The marijuana example wasn’t for the sake of arguing for keeping marijuana use illegal. It was for the sake of illustrating how a private act that, looked at abstractly, doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone at the moment it’s performed, is actually participant in a network of relations that as a whole is bad.
I know that liberals believe in zones of legal privacy, notably in sexual and worldview matters. At this stage in the argument, I’m not interested in the legal side of the issue, but in the metaphsyical side of it, if you will.
In other words, I don’t buy the idea that, when it comes to sex, consent between adults is the sole relevant criterion for deciding whether or not an act is OK. That’s precisely why it’s possible to think prostitution is wrong.
Adrian
LaShawn,
Can you please fix it so that if I hit Esc I don’t lose all of my comment!
You’re kidding, right? How old are you? What in the world would I know about preventing you from losing your comment? I suggest you copy the text before clicking “Say it!” and/or stop hitting the escape key.
What a bizarre request.
Anom, now you’re blending classic liberalism with the modern day liberalism that refuses to hold one fully accountable for their actions.
If as you say, you’re not an anti-american liberal that’s fine, if you mean you’re a liberal a la Joe Liberman, Sam Nunn et al. I usually try to distinguish between those type of liberals from the raving moonbats that have taken over the DNC within the last few years such as Dean, Kennedy, Boxer, Soros, Jackson-Lee, Stewart and all of the anti-american groups such as MoveOn, ANSWER, ACLU etc. This new boss is going to continue to drive traditional democrats away to the GOP. This will continue to hppen until either control of the DNC is taken back or a new “left-wing” party comes into play.
Again, you can shout that Bush lied all you want, that simply isn’t true. Bad intelligence, yes, thanks to liberals undermining our intelligence capabilities. As we know now, there were two factions, one believed Saddam needed to be dealt with and the other that saw him as irrelevant. We elect a president to lead based on the information made available to him to the best of his ability and judgement. For POTUS to choose one path over the other is NOT equivalent to lying. You may disagree with the policy that he choose, but you may not accuse him of lying, just as we accuse Clinton of bad judgement to make critical decisions while Monica is servcing him under his desk, but you won’t find us accusing him of lying in deciding not to take on Osama when he had the chance.
And finally, what’s wrong with the Bush doctrine? Leftist have been railing against real-politics for who knows how long. Now that we have an administration determined to undo the damage caused by decades of coddling tyrants, you clowns now do a 180. The simple fact is you can’t counter evil by timeouts or sending the troublemaker to the corner. Sometimes it takes a spanking to stop the problem. Problem is, you you don’t have the spine to hold anyone accountable, let alone exercise tough love, since everything is relative.
You had your chance with Clinton and were found wanting. Now it’s time to step aside and let a real leader do his job. When you guys figure out what you’re all about, you’re welcome to present your case and persuade us to vote for your candidate in 08/12.
Lead, Follow or get the heck out of the way!
Dear Adrian,
Shall we get to the nitty gritty and discuss the morality of homosexual sex between consenting adults?
There is a verse in the Five Books of Moses that can be interpreted as prohibiting male homosexual sex. There is no reference in the Five Books of Moses to female homosexual sex. Be careful about trying to use the Five Books of Moses as a standard of morality. The Five Books of Moses also prohibit the wearing of clothing made with both linen and wool; the eating of pork, shrimp, clams, lobster, or crab; and dozens of specific prohibitions relating to the Sabbath day, including lighting of fires. Since a motor vehicle is powered by an internal combustion engine, according to the Five Books of Moses, driving is prohibited on the Sabbath. So, please be aware of the complications in asserting the Five Books of Moses as the source and definition of morality. As for the New Testament, well, Jesus did not discuss homosexuality.
Some of what we think about morality is really just what we’re used to. Fifty years ago, the sight of interracial couples in the United States was so unusual that to some Americans, it seemed shocking and therefore immoral. Hardly anyone thinks it’s immoral today. And 50 years ago, the sight of homosexual couples hugging and kissing when greeting at the train station or the airport (just as heterosexuals do) was so unusual that it seemed shocking, and therefore immoral, to some Americans. But now, more and more Americans have come to see that the world doesn’t come to an end when homosexuals kiss in public, and no longer consider it immoral.
If God disagrees, and thinks that homosexual acts, or eating shrimp, are abominations, God can deal with it.
Does that mean “anything goes”? Of course not. In order to have civilization, we have to declare certain acts as immoral. We declare theft, rape, murder, and various other acts to be immoral and we develop a complex system to enforce moral behavior.
There are acts that are beyond the scope of law that we may regard being immoral. Gossip, for example. Or, sex between adults where one party misleads the other into thinking love exists where it does not. I agree with you when you say “I don’t buy the idea that, when it comes to sex, consent between adults is the sole relevant criterion for deciding whether or not an act is OK.”
LaShawn began the conversation with a photograph of a mock stoning in Iran, noting that “Sex outside marriage is illegal in Iran and capital punishment can be imposed.” I observed that “Islamic ‘justice’ has a lot more in common with American conservatism than American liberalism.” I stand by that characterization. Conservatives, more than liberals, tend to stick their noses into sex outside marriage, or even inside marriage. There used to be laws in some states regulating sex inside marriage, prohibiting oral sex. Was it conservatives, or liberals, who passed those laws? Was it conservatives, or liberals, who passed laws prohibiting dispensation of contraceptives to unmarried women?
So, Adrian, whatever you or I may think about the morality of oral sex or premarital sex or homosexual sex, I believe that the government should not attempt to legislate what consenting adults can do. (I do agree that there is a legitimate interest in prohibiting prostitution.) American conservatives should realize the disastrous consequences of Islamic justice and accept the liberal position that establishes a broad zone of privacy into which the government does not go.
Respectfully,
Dear Andy,
The entire Bush administration systematically attempted to convince the American people:
1. That there was a connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11/2001.
2. That there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
3. That Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
4. That the war would be a “cakewalk” and cost only a few billion dollars at most.
5. That the hard part would be the initial war, and that the occupation after would be easy in comparison.
6. That our soldiers would be welcomed with rose petals.
7. “Mission Accomplished.”
None of these things were true. In short, they were lies.
Don’t be blaming the bad intelligence on liberals. The White House told the CIA what answers it needed, and twisted arms very hard to get the results it wanted. Look what happened to the man who correctly the theory of Iraqi purchasing of uranium from Niger. They destroyed his wife’s career!
How dare you accuse Howard Dean of being anti-American! How dare you accuse Barbara Boxer of being anti-American! How dare you accuse any of our senators and representatives of being anti-American! The American Civil Liberties Union is there to protect everybody, liberal or conservative, against ruthless government running over people’s rights. The ACLU defended ultra-conservative Oliver North, remember?
It is possible to disagree with the policies and approach of the Bush administration without being anti-American.
The Bush administration’s failure to prohibit torture, and, in fact, embrace torture techniques in Guantanamo and in Iraq — and outsourcing to Syria — have set back the cause of ending militant Islam by a very great amount. It is not unAmerican to say this.
Have a nice day,
Anom, thanks for restating the anti-american line. I do believe I’m starting to crack the Da Vinci code with the info you provided.
Dear Anomalocaris,
Thanks for your reply.
Let’s start with the Bible, which, you’ll notice, I didn’t mention. Lots of people have believed that things are right and wrong because that’s the Nature of Things without appealing to the Bible. But let me say something about the Bible.
There are also condemnations of male and female homosexuality in the NT—in Romans 1, for example. That’s significant for Christians: the NT is the normative interpretation of the OT, and decides what of the old law carries over into the new. Clearly, the ritual prescriptions don’t—so Christians can eat shrimp (thank God—love ‘em)—but the moral ones, on the whole, do. So homosexuality is still considered immoral. Of course, a believing Jew might have trouble with a sharp distinction between moral and ritual law, but I think that the distinction is a sound one.
Now, let’s assume that I came to my conviction that homosexual sex is wrong because I believe in the Bible. Given my own history as a convert to Catholicism, that assumption is true in a psychological sense, if you will. But it doesn’t follow from this that I believe homosexual sex is wrong just because God says so. As most of the great theologians have known, wrong acts aren’t wrong because God says so, but God says they’re wrong because they are wrong.
Before we even get onto the subject of the Bible or of God, we need to decided whether or not we believe right and wrong are simply conventional. True, some judgments about right and wrong are conventional. Our grandparents’ horror of interracial dating reflects a time-conditioned sensibility that, thank goodness, belongs more and more to the past. But, presumably, our horror at rape doesn’t.
Some things are right and wrong, not because anyone says so, but because they just are, in the very nature of things. If God enters the picture, he does so, not as an arbitrary legislator, but as the source of nature itself.
Notice: I am going further than you when you say, in effect, that society needs moral rules to hold together. That’s true, but your language is ambiguous, and leaves itself open a conventionalist interpretation. If that’s the line you’re taking, then I ask you this: why THESE rules? That is, assuming society needs some rules to hold together, why rules against theft, rape, murder, and the like. If conventionalism in questions of right and wrong is true, then it should be the case that any rules will do, that social order can be anything we want it to be. But the fact is, rules against theft, rape, murder, etc. “work” because . . . human society, for all its immense variation, has a certain nature . . . as do human beings themselves.
So I take the following line: (1) Is anything wrong in the nature of things, or is everything right or wrong only conventionally?; (2) if the former—if some things are wrong in the nature of things—then we can’t say, a priori, that homosexual sex is not one of those things; (3) nor can we assume that the criterion of privacy, of “it’s not hurting anyone as long as it’s consensual and non-exploitive,” is sufficient to get homosexual sex off the moral hook.
Let me dwell on (3) for a minute. If right and wrong are in the nature of things, that means that right and wrong are what they are prior to our choice. Thus, when it comes to right and wrong, the fact that X is right or wrong and the fact that I consent to do it are two separate issues. Consent can’t make X right or wrong; it can only make me guilty or not of X.
For me, the issue of the morality of homosexual sex gets down to the question of whether or not (1) there is such a thing as a nature of things; (2) that is more than just brute fact, but that is also a value—whether or not there is a way things ought or supposed to be, and, in the normal case, are; (3) whether or not the way our bodies are structured is a manifestation of this way that things ought to be. If 1-3 are true, then the physical uniqueness of the male-female sex act—where BOTH partners can have their sex organs stimulated simultaneously in the same coupling and that same coupling is, at least in principle, generative of new life—is morally signficant.
Of course, you might say that 1-3 are nonsense, outmoded teleological thinking. But if so, then how do we still talk about any right and wrong as anything but conventional? And if right and wrong are just conventional, then, in principle, anything goes. Yes, society will have certain rules, but either those rules are the ones that any society needs to have to be a working human society, in which case we’ve transcended conventionalism—or else “working human society” is whatever we want it to be, in which case we have a door open to Hitler and Stalin.
Adrian
Dear Anomalocaris,
One other point . . . my concern here is not with what should be criminal or not but with what is right and wrong independently of the legal question. We can recognize some things as immoral without necessarily committing ourselves to making them criminal.
Of course, not making things criminal is very different from giving them legal recognition. Thus, it’s one thing not to jail or stone gays—I wouldn’t be in favor of that—but it’s another thing to say that gays have the right to marry. To say that is to change the definition of marriage and its place in society and so to affect everyone.
Adrian
Adrian, well written.
Thanks, Andy. That’s a real compliment coming from the king of the commenters himself.
A.
Adrian, hah! More like king of babble-long, your concise writing puts me to shame.
Dear Adrian,
You raise a lot of very good questions. My views on the origin, nature, and absoluteness of morality cannot be condensed to a few paragraphs. To give you some insight on my views, please check out from your local library or purchase this book: Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, by George Lakoff. Publisher: University of Chicago Press; ISBN: 0226467716. George Lakoff is a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at the University of California, Berkeley. Although the book is written by an academic and is abundantly footnoted, you don’t need to be a student of linguistics to read it. It’s written for a general audience, and many liberals and conservatives say that Lakoff has described their moral systems quite well. After you have finished the second chapter, on the moral system shared by many liberals, please e-mail me at anomalocarisNO-SPAM@earthlink.net (without the NO-SPAM) and I’d be pleased to discuss your questions further.
Respectfully,
Dear Andy,
That’s mighty kind of you . . . but don’t sell yourself short, your majesty.
Dear Anomalocaris,
I’ll try to take a look at the Lakoff book, although I can’t promise anything. What’s his main thesis?
For me, the liberal-conservative issue is dwarfed by another one: the ancient-modern one. Simplifying: the moderns believe that social order is simply a human artifact (as in social contract theory), whereas the ancients believe(d) that, despite all its variations, social order has a given nature that’s not up for grabs. Basically what’s at issue is the question about whether or not social order is simply conventional (moderns) or, in the midst of all the convention there admittedly is, there’s also a way society is by nature.
Cordially,
Adrian
Dear Adrian,
Lakoff’s book deals with your ancient/modern dichotomy, although it does not use those exact terms to describe the paradigms.
Sincerely,
Sometimes the opposition can make your case better than you can yourself by just letting them talk. Thank you Iexist.
I ‘was’ guilty of over generalizing in my previous comment Anomalocaris. There are always exceptions in a grouping based on political preferences. I apologize to you if you are not one of those in the generalization.
I do enjoy reading your rebuttals here and hope you and others continue. But, I really do believe Iexist’s comment more closely represents the largest majority of liberals attitude when discussing their country.
Where is any credit given, unless in a defensive response? When is any positives promoted? Where is any patriotism demonstrated?
It is a clear pattern and perception most liberals leave and they either have to be more positive, or live with the negative responses to it.
As noted by Jim R, Iexist’s comment shows the disconnect between critical thinking and rality. Reality-based activism, hmmph.
Our education system has clearly shortchanged a significant number of its students in this vital skillset as aptly illustrated by this image. It’s been said a picture is worth a thousand words. The maleducated elites have mangaged to reduce it to just 7.
http://www.grotto11.com/blog/archive/1109295693.shtml
Dear Anomalocaris,
How does Lakoff treat the two “paradigms”?
In my view, both liberalism and a certain strand of conservatism—the more free-market oriented one—fall on the modern side of the ancients-modern divide. What would Lakoff say about that?
Just to make it clear where I am coming from: I think that the modern view is powerful, and has some truth to it, but I think the ancient view is better in one major respect: justice, for the ancients, is not a matter of contract, but of the nature of things.
By the way, I sent you an email—but with the NO SPAM. It hasn’t bounced back, but perhaps you didn’t get it. Did you?
Cheers,
Adrian
Dear Adrian,
I did not get your comment. Please send it to (my name) followed by @earthlink.net.
Anom, in reference to “2. That there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
That’s been sufficiently detailed in the “bi-partisan” report on 9-11. If you download the PDF, just find “Iraq” and you’ll find about 12 pages devoted to the courtship of Saddam & Osama. Furthermore, most anti-americans also claim that Bush lied about the association between Osama and Zarqawi. But that’s been debunked almost from the get go. I find it curious that AAs will go to any length to parse and spin the obvious and common sense reports into Bush lied.
I was wondering what the deal was with the heightened security at the airport when I got on my flight. Now the MSM is saying that from multiple sources, that Osama has told Zarqawi to forget about Iraq and focus on attacking the US at home. Hmmm. Enemy of my enemy is my friend…
So who’s been lying now? Who’s been deluding themselves under the reality-based matra? Gotta love the democracy domino effect going on in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and even Iran. Bush had to go and tip the apple cart and now all dem apples are rolling every which way faster than the tyrants can catch em. Bwahahaha
Dear Andy,
Kindly stop refering to people who disagree with you, or President Bush, or the wisdom of embarking on the Iraq qar as “anti-American.” Reasonable people may differ. I certainly don’t call those who disagree with me, or believe that this $300 billion boondoggle was the right course, as “anti-American,” so kindly grant the other side the same respect we grant you.
Even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq prior to 9/11/2001. This was posted to the State Department’s website. Unfortunately, that page has been taken down (Could this be a cover-up?) but you can find a record of it on Kevin Drum’s blog at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004766.php.
As for the democracy domino effect, I’m as excited as you are by the possibility of Syria getting out of Lebanon. I am just as cheered as you by whatever progress is made in democratizing the Middle East. But let’s remember that the great blue whale in this part of the world is Saudi Arabia, which remains as undemocratic as it gets.
Respectfully,
Anom, when you cite the State Department, you do so at your risk. So State Dept are now experts on intel? Their idea of intel is to send a guy to hobnob with local bigshots while drinking cocktails.
Did it ever occur to you that their report was deep-sixed not due to a coverup, but that possibly it was so flawed, it should have never seen light of day? Their report is at odds with the 9-11 commission report, as well as other reports.
Let’s explore this enemy of my enemy meme a little bit.
*Osama is a theofacist like the Taliban in Afghan & Mullahs in Iran
*Osama hates the US
*Osama hates Islamic apostasy, this includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & fence sitters like Jordan.
*Osama also hates secular Arab states, such as Iraq & Syria, their saving grace is that they’re Sunnis.
–Kuwait is Pro-American
–Saudi, along w/ an opportunist Jordan, are “buddies” w/ America.
–Iraq/Syria & America are not.
–Iraq wants to take over Saudi & Kuwait, while Syria wants Lebanon so as to flank Isreal.
Granted this is just a fraction of the complex interrelationships in SWA, but if you’re going to triangulate the devil, who’s Osama’s best friend for as long as necessary? Who harbored and mended Osama’s men as well as other notorious terroists?
Bottomline, State Dept is run by a cabal of statist. These guys are so in bed with their foreign hosts that they’ve gone native.
This is the same group who were horrified/disgusted by Reagan and choked on their brie and schnitzel when Reagan demanded that Gorby tear down the wall. How dare the Gipper upset their carefully nuanced apple cart?
This is the same group who hastened to apologize for Reagan’s rashness and reassure them that no matter what he says, things will remain as before, sprouting nonsense like “Must be that senility kicking in”; “Pay no attention to that man”; “We’ll still be here after he’s gone”; and “We have Senators and others who support brownnosing our foreign masters”.
Credible pro-American experts on Euro/Soviet countries? I think not.
This is the same group who saw nothing wrong with their visa express system that allowed anyone from Saudi to fasttrack their visas for coming to the States — I mean no one, not even Europe, had it as easy as the Saudis to get into the US legally. In spite of some of of the 9-11 terrorists getting in that way, State Dept was bound and determined to maintain the system, to the point of insubordination to our govt.
Credible pro-American experts on Saudi/Islamic countries? I think not.
This is the same group who pried the fingers of American women & children off their embassy gates , in order to turn them back over to their moslem husbands and fathers. Remember that Sally Fields flick, “Not w/o My Daughther”. She was lucky, hundreds of others are trapped behind the Koranic curtain.
Credible pro-democracy/freedom advoates in Saudi/Islamic countries? I think not.
The same people that cautioned, better the Saddam we know than someone we don’t know and argued every trivial point they could think of against action in Afghanistan & Iraq. The same people who have a vested interest in seeing “diplomacy” win this battle by any means necessary.
Face it, State Dept does not have a winning track record, especially when they willfully ignore their diplomat-in-chief.
But that’s ok, Condi has a couple of years to give them an attitude adjustment. I do believe those spike heel shoes will be most useful in goring delicate namby-pamby toes. By the time she becomes POTUS, I’ll imagine, the hardcore anti-Americans will be so terrorized, they’ll get out of foreign service ASAP.
Finally, if you were waiting on diplomacy to start the domino effect I hope youe weren’t holding your breath. Clinton had the chance, but he ducked and ran. Man, just imgine if Gored had been president when 9-11 happen. So far, he’s been wrong on just about every isse as che ankle-biter
Andy,
I asked you to stop using the term “anti-American” to describe loyal Americans whose views differ from yours.
Anom, of course I know, as well as anyone else that there are pro-Americans on both sides of the political aisle. The problem appears to be that either you didn’t capeche what I wrote or your rebutting nippers were fitted with wax teeth — Hollywood glam & dazzle, but no edge of truth.
But when moonbats twist facts, or make incomplete rationalizations as to why the US is a boogey man on any topic, they are rightly considered anti-americans. Put it this way;
If you think Ward Churchill, George Soros as well as the sorts spelled out by Ann Coulter’s “Treason”, are loyal Americans, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think George W. Bush is not your president, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think that we need to pass a global test before lifting a finger against tyrants, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think we should subordinate ourselves to various world bodies, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think the Liberman is a closet republican because he isn’t hard left, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think that we should modify our founding documents to give Sharia a prominent spot in our system, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think that our system is one of the worst systems of government, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think that our government should not flow up from the people, rather self-chosen elites ought to decide what’s best for us and enforce it for our own good, then you might be an anti-American.
If you think the government has the right to take what is yours and make it ours, then you might be an anti-American.
Did I miss any? Oh yeah.
If you think Bush stole the elctions in 2000, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.
If you think there is a vast right wing conspiracy, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.
If you think that aliens are coming to take over the world with their flying saucers, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.
If you are proud to be an American and willing to stand beside her & guide her her thru the night with the light from above, pitch in and work within the system to both defend and improve it, being a good sport even when things don’t go your way, then you are a loyal American.
PS, are you sure you don’t work for State Department?
You tell ‘em Andy.
Dan
Dear Andy,
“When moonbats twist facts” — conservatives are just as guilty of this as liberals.
“US is a boogey man on any topic” — That’s not liberals. Criticizing Mr. Bush or his policies is not making the U.S. a boogey man. I’ll bet you criticized President Clinton; did that mean you were anti-American?
“Ann Coulter’s ‘Treason’ — Yeah, anybody can write a book. There’s a whole chapter about Ann Coulter in a book by Al Franken. Book vs. Book.
“George W. Bush is not your president” — I never said that. However, raising questions about what happened in Florida in November 2000 does not make one anti-American. Quite the contrary — it’s anti-American to suppress that inquiry.
“Global test” — it’s clear from the transcript of the debate that when Sen. John Kerry used the word “global” he meant in in the sense of “general,” as in “a global estimate,” not in the sense of “requiring permission of other nations.” It is dishonest to pretend otherwise. And, in fact, Kerry clarified this point, but conservatives continue to lie about it.
“subordinate ourselves to various world bodies” — I never said that, and I don’t agree with it.
“Liberman [sic] is a closet republican — I strongly disagree.
“Modify our founding documents to give Sharia a prominent spot in our system” — Liberals oppose that as much as you.
“Our system is one of the worst systems of government” — I strongly disagree with that.
“If you think that our government should not flow up from the people, rather self-chosen elites ought to decide what’s best for us and enforce it for our own good, then you might be an anti-American.” — Excuse me, Conservatives now control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court, and you are afraid of liberals deciding what’s best for everybody? WTF?
“If you think the government has the right to take what is yours and make it ours, then you might be an anti-American.” Excuse me, the Constitution specifically includes the words “lay and collect taxes,” remember?
“If you think Bush stole the elctions in 2000, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.” Let’s get this straight. By the official tally, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. It is not “gullible” to suspect that of over 50,000 voters scrubbed from the voter rolls under contract by Secretary of State/Chief Election officer/Chair of the Bush Campaign [Do I hear "conflict of interest"?] Katharine Harris, there were well over 537 — more likely thousands — of non-felon eligible voters [mostly Black! Do I hear "racism"?] who would have unambiguously put Kerry over the top, if they had not unlawfully been deprived of their right to vote.
“Aliens are coming to take over the world with their flying saucers” — Not me. I’d bet that belief is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals, but anyway, I agree with you that that one is ridiculous.
“If you are proud to be an American and willing to stand beside her & guide her her thru the night with the light from above, pitch in and work within the system to both defend and improve it, being a good sport even when things don’t go your way, then you are a loyal American.” That’s me! And most liberals too!
“Are you sure you don’t work for State Department?” Not I!
Anom, I fear thou doest protest too much. So what’s your objection again to if and might?
Good post Anormalocaris.
Comments on this entry are closed.