Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What if the nature of life and reality is that it doesn't always fit into a formula or a catechism?

It's a good question, Eric. Moral grey areas. I'm certainly not a Kantian when it comes to the "categorical imperative". You have to consider intent and purpose. Defending yourself from an armed robber and inadvertently killing him/her wouldn't be the same as actively seeking someone out for the expressed purpose of murder. Likewise, your grandma asking you if you like her cookies that taste awful if you enjoy them after her spending all day making them and lying and saying: "yes, grandma" isn't the same as, say, being president and committing an act of perjury. Life is certainly not black and white always. This doesn't denote mortal relativism. Some things are just wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What if human "teachings" and formulations of the "truth" are not as absolutely true, as the truth itself is? Should someone be told they don't have a relationship with God or Jesus, because they think some of the teachings of church authorities are not absolutely accurate, and need to be adjusted?

I wouldn't make an exception for Francis Bacon though; he was a duncehead.

There is an objective Truth greater than our subjective interpretation of things. This isn't the question. The question has always been whether we as humans are able to grasp with our subjective minds this objective reality in its fullness. And it's a good question. It is one I sometimes struggle with. Ultimately, I put my faith in my faith. But to answer your question - my opinion is no. They shouldn't be told that they don't have a relationship with God and Christ just because their opinion varies from official dogmatic/doctrinal teachings. Because none of us can truly know what is in the heart of someone. What I'm saying is that you can't really refer to yourself as a specific follower of a religious teaching (i.e. calling yourself Catholic and/or Baptist, Methodist, etc.) if you don't ascribe to the actual dogmatic teachings. It's a vegetarian who loves bacon otherwise.

j.p.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

What about a Catholic who is personally opposed to abortion in accordance with Catholic doctrine but also believes that it's not the place of government to impose that Catholic belief on a population that is majority non-Catholic? IIRC, that is the stand that Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and others have held.

It's not enough just to think it's wrong on a personal level and act against this personal belief. Do you really have a belief that something is wrong if you are complicit with it? I think a comparison of regular German citizens during the Third Reich would be a fitting analogy. I have a hard time believing these people just didn't know what was happening down the street at Dachau or Bergen-Belsen. They chose to ignore the fact as they didn't want to end up on the other side of the fences themselves so chose to be morally complicit - closing their eyes to the entire affair.

The Church has been clear - voting itself for a "pro-choice" candidate alone is being morally complicit in the crime of abortion. Much less being a politician who supports it which is far worse (as Cardinal Dolan and others have pointed out). Kennedy probably isn't the best choice above - the man was a murderer himself (by omission through his actions of not by direct commission itself) so I don't think it's best to use his personal character as a guide for other Catholics to consider.

Here's the Church's statement on voting as a Catholic:

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

j.p.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Knuckling under to bullies who use violence to shut people up does not promote peace. You think they will stop with this?

The multiple organizations and motives does not make this a simple question to answer. I'm inclined to believe the lethal attack was done by an Al Qaida offshoot on the September 11th anniversary, but this hasn't been proven. Al Qaida doesn't tend to claim credit, and when they do you're never sure if they're lying for propaganda reasons.

There are a lot of other intense but generally non lethal protests going on where the blasphemous video is the given proximate cause. As others have said, US policy towards Israel and US support Big Oil likely contribute. A lot of folk in the Middle East don't like us anyway.

Will our racists stop producing hate propaganda? No. I'd think they likely view the protests as evidence of their own success. They ticked off the Arabs. They are getting publicity. This might seem neat. They are apt do it again.

Will the protests fade? Likely. For a while they will yell and scream with no apparent result. Cost of security will go up. Eventually, the novelty will fade as will the protests. I doubt they'll last as long as the Occupy movement.

Who exactly is knuckling under to bullies?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hey, JPT, Weave, Wallace et al, I think your boy, Romney, just went over to the commie Left apologists who just hate free speech. I think you owe it to yourselves, to the very principles you stand for, to just stay out of this election. I know you can't vote for Obama, but you can show your disgust by staying home on election day, and getting all your friends to stay home as well. That will show that pinko Romney turncoat!

... or vote for these guys ... worthy as they are of your undying support.

Hey, they're on the ballot in those important states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Does this guy look Presidential, or what?

I'm not sure I'd agree that The Life of Brian mocked Christians. It made fun of government officials, nationalistic zealots, and Latin grammar Nazis (one of my favorite scenes was when the Roman soldier came on the zealot mangling "Romans go home" and made him get it right and then do it 50 times). It never actually made fun of Jesus, though. The closest it came was during the Sermon on the Mount when someone in the back heard him say "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and argued over whether he meant cheesemakers specifically or an allegorical reference to any manufacturers of dairy products. But that was mocking his listeners, not Jesus himself.

Even books and films that have stepped outside tradition in their treatment of Jesus, from Jesus Christ, Superstar to The Last Temptation of Christ have generally done so with respect, completely different from this film's crappy treatment of Mohammed. Mohammed is a fascinating historical figure and I'd love to see treatment of him by a non-Muslim who could be objective and do a good job. Of course, Muslims might not like that, either.

How about this offensive image?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ev...hammed_Day.jpg

Originally Posted by B Butler

...Who exactly is knuckling under to bullies?

...read on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybo...w_Mohammed_Day

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was an event held on May 20, 2010 in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech...

There were two images in the position of runner-up – one was an artistic rendition of a tobacco smoking pipe. The depiction references surrealist artist Rene Magritte, and includes the text, "This is not a pipe. This is Muhammed." The Reason journalists commented that the image toyed with Magritte's "famous statement about the necessary disjuncture between a picture and the thing it seeks to represent." The second runner-up was a parody of the Where's Waldo? series, and the winner was a connect the dots picture...

It was actually a good idea:

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic...

"There is a deeper lesson here: Connect the dots and discover that we all must be Spartacus on Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. And that in a free society, every day is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Anyway:

On July 11, 2010, it was reported that Yemeni-American al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had put Molly Norris on a hitlist. In the English-language al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, Al-Awlaki wrote "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved", and was quoted as saying

The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are more targets to choose from in addition to the difficulty of the government offering all of them special protection ... But even then our campaign should not be limited to only those who are active participants.

FBI officials have reportedly notified Norris warning her they consider it a "very serious threat". Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding...

Originally Posted by The Rani

...I'm not a Jihadi type (I don't stand up enough for my fellow Muslims, remember?) so I'm hardly qualified to answer the second question.

-Someone called you a Muslim, I take it. Sorry. I missed that one. I'll try to find it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not directly. He assumed that I was a Muslim and proceeded to insult me from there. It was quite comical.
I'd like to propose another one ... "Everyone Offend a Muslim Extremist Day."

-If you're nor wearing at least a scarf on your head, you already have.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was thinking that the reason that The Left is trying so hard to pin this one on The Right is that they're afraid of looking in the mirror.
I wonder what's more offensive to Muslim extremists, a dumb movie, or a national healthcare plan providing free abortions for all?

Evidently a dumb movie, although it shouldn't be.

But the question assumes that "the left" cares about being offensive to Muslim extremists.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...But the question assumes that "the left" cares about being offensive to Muslim extremists.

-The left cares about offending people who threaten to cut their heads off:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybo...w_Mohammed_Day

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was an event held on May 20, 2010 in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010...

...it was reported that Yemeni-American al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had put Molly Norris on a hitlist. In the English-language al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, Al-Awlaki wrote "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved", and was quoted as saying

The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are more targets to choose from in addition to the difficulty of the government offering all of them special protection ... But even then our campaign should not be limited to only those who are active participants.

FBI officials have reportedly notified Norris warning her they consider it a "very serious threat". Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding...

..and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_va...(film_director)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

What will progressives do if other groups use the same rigorous tactics the Jihadis use, eh?

Originally Posted by JDFP

Being pro-choice and Christian (or at least Catholic?).

It's certainly something to consider. Personally, I can't individually classify someone as being a "true" Christian or not - I don't know what is in their hearts - but as a Catholic when someone fundamentally disagrees with a dogmatic teaching of the faith it does give me pause to consider that if someone doesn't actually follow the teachings of the faith if they can really call themselves a member of that faith. It's a bit like saying you're a Catholic but that whole Jesus as God stuff just seems a bit silly but otherwise you're cool with everything else - or that you're a vegetarian but you make an exception for bacon (oh, but only bacon though!). Can you really classify yourself as something if you have a fundamental dogmatic disagreement with it?

... There are, of course, varying degrees of "pro-choice" - I don't mean to deny that at all as a matter of science. However, the catechism is again very clear that it's classified as from the moment of conception and doesn't make his scientific distinction at all. In essence, claiming to be a "pro-choice" Catholic, by default, is similar to the claimant saying they are a Catholic except for buying the whole Trinity bit about Jesus being God. And I'm not the one saying it - it's the catechism here.

j.p.

So, as Catholic, I have to assume you are also against the death penatly ... and for the exact same reason.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Exactly. Back in 1991 I remember Egyptian Jihad types explaining the reason they hate America: We let our women run around "naked".


Well, I filtered back through the posts, and what do I find?


...which is, nothing.



-You mean, PW might have been a marine for the 3 days until his butt got kicked out of boot camp. Or are you referring to PW's service in the Parachute Ski Marines?

If Playfraud was a marine, he was the most incompetent and ignorant marine in history, and that's saying a lot.

From the archives:



To which I responded:



...that easily forgettable song which most USMC veterans simply end up referring to as "that friken song about when a soldier dies and goes to heaven, not to fear, he'll find a marine guarding the pearly gates"...

How far should I dig into the archives?

Are you actually taking Playfraud's little off hand remarks seriously, Mr. Horn? Are you really that gullible? Well, as you know, you're the real deal, so I'll always cut you a little break, Mr. Horn.

Yeah, that is true. Everyone knows that song.

I had a roomate who would sing his old unit song. Loudly. Off key. He looked like Obama. Another racial stereotype but the dust... funny.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, he didn't. Especially the way he worded it. "Satisfying the Jihadi types" is completely irrelevant here. The movie is offensive because it is crude, stupid, and fallacious, not because Muslims don't like it and not because some of them may attack our embassies because of it.

This is what you don't seem to get.

You did not answer the question. What specifically did you find offensive about it? What could have been taken out to make it inoffensive?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You did not answer the question. What specifically did you find offensive about it? What could have been taken out to make it inoffensive?

I'll refer you to what the Rani said. She's on target there.

I'll also refer you to my post #9469. There's really no way to save this film; it would have to be redone from scratch by someone else to be anything other than a waste of effort.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, as Catholic, I have to assume you are also against the death penatly ... and for the exact same reason.

fwiw, my catholic upbringing might come in handy here. The abortion riuling ius ex cathedra, the death penalty is not. fwww

Fuck, I'm in agreement with Wallace AND Glick? Hell just froze over...

Originally Posted by Odin

Fuck, I'm in agreement with Wallace AND Glick? They must be ice-skating in Hell!

I'm an atheist. I don't know about Sir Glick.

Originally Posted by Odin

Fuck, I'm in agreement with Wallace AND Glick? Hell just froze over...

-I assume this is about the rush to self-censorship.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I'm an atheist. I don't know about Sir Glick...

-Agnostic with a strong suspicion that there's something to the God of Abraham.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, as Catholic, I have to assume you are also against the death penatly ... and for the exact same reason.

And you'd be 100% right too. I'm completely against Capital Punishment except in extreme circumstances (i.e. no other viable way to protect society through ensuring the party in question would never be able to kill/harm others in society). And I agree completely with the Republican party regarding this issue. It's not the government's place to play God and dictate life/death to others. I'm not a Republican though - I'm a paleoconservative who leans towards the Republican cause on most issues - but not this one.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I assume this is about the rush to self-censorship.

Yes. In fact a few days ago before this happened I just mentioned to Kinser'79 about how calling someone a Racist Neo-Colonialist Pig has been used since the Awakening to attack Enlightenment values.

No, this is NOT The Onion!!!

Rick Santorum Says "Smart People Will Never Be On Our Side"

CAN'T STOP LAUGHING!!!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Do they all have those thread marks from screwing their hats on their jarheads?

Just asking.

Nope..They're all just way different than Playdude.

Originally Posted by Odin

No, this is NOT The Onion!!!

Rick Santorum Says "Smart People Will Never Be On Our Side"

CAN'T STOP LAUGHING!!!

-Obviously, the "smart" people have "scare quotes" around the "smart", pointing out that they think they're smart, but aren't.

Subtlety has never been your thing, has it?

Originally Posted by The Rani

There's also this:

and this:

and this:
and this:

...variations on the theme. The one thing Aramea, BR, PW and PBR is that they are petrified of Muslims, and think the way to handle them is to pander to them. They don't realize that it will be a nevwer-ending process with the Muslims, and then everbody else, once they see how effective threats work on these liberals.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Personally, I would avoid escalating spirals of violence if possible. I don't claim to have a system of morality which trumps all other systems of morality, though.

May wisdom come and turn our fury into amenity. Even if it does take bribes and veiled threats to change such horses midstream, such is Aeschylus' warning.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Well, that's what he [PW] claims to be. But, I'm not a believer because I have yet to see the signs of a Marine.

...and...

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Nope..They're all just way different than Playdude.

I already posted this: http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...963#post443963

...but just in case, show me a marine:

Originally Posted by playwrite

...
I tried to get him to go with a different service branch (e.g. Air Force), but he responded that "no, dad, I'm interested in joining the real military." God, the Marine brainwash starts early. Even before he actually signed, they had him going 2x a week to "PT!" including of late, 20 milers w/packs. WTF?! They even gave him a fricken video of boot camp to learn some of the cadences. Now, he goes around singing that friken song about when a soldier dies and goes to heaven, not to fear, he'll find a marine guarding the pearly gates...

...who doesn't remember the Hymn.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was thinking that the reason that The Left is trying so hard to pin this one on The Right is that they're afraid of looking in the mirror.
I wonder what's more offensive to Muslim extremists, a dumb movie, or a national healthcare plan providing free abortions for all?

How about gay marriage? I'm sure that's viewed as being even more offensive by them as well.