blatham
Quote:Au...you've got this one wrong, and by a country mile. Lott's statement was racist, but Moran's wasn't anti-Semitic.
As with everything else it's in the eyes of the beholder.
Lott was known to have a racist background as do many of the southern republicans. However, his praise of Thurmond IMO was just that and was not meant to support racism. It however, was successfully used against him. I do not support Lott and a glad to see him get his butt kicked however,that does not mean I agree with the reasoning.
I the other hand the congressman's statements IMO were direct and need no interpretation.
Frank
You are running true to form. Had you expressed any other view it would have been out of character.
EXCERPTS from Harpers magazine 3/03
Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover among America's secret theocratsBy Jeffrey Sharlet ["an editor of the online magazine KillingtheBuddha.com and co-author of the forthcoming book Killing the Buddha: A Heretic's Bible (The Free Press)]
..It is April 2002, and I have lived with these men for weeks now, not as a Christian -- a term they deride as too narrow for the world they are building in Christ's honor -- but as a "believer." ... Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as "the Family." The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries.In 1944, Vereide had foreseen what he called "the new world order." "Upon the termination of the war there will be many men available to carry on," Vereide wrote in a letter to his wife. "Now the ground-work must be laid and our leadership brought to face God in humility, prayer and obedience." He began organizing prayer meetings for delegates to the United Nations, at which he would instruct them in God's plan for rebuilding from the wreckage of the war. Donald Stone, a high-ranking administrator of the Marshall Plan, joined the directorship of Vereide's organization. In an undated letter, he wrote Vereide that he would "soon begin a tour around the world for the [Marshall Plan], combining with this a spiritual mission." In 1946, Vereide, too, toured the world, traveling with letters of introduction from a half dozen senators and representatives, and from Paul G. Hoffman, the director of the Marshall Plan....
Tartarin
I'd read that piece in Harpers. Quite something. You guys are in a bit of trouble down there, and I wish you all luck.
Au
For goodness sakes...would you please define anti-Semitism and then show how this is an example of it.
Off topic, sorta, and not to be construed as any sort of "Statement of Official Position", but I would prefer links to publicly available articles where possible as opposed to lengthy cut-and-pastes ... it saves bandwidth. No big deal, really, just a personal observation. Of course, if the article is from a paid subscription site, or otherwise restricted from general access, that's a different thing.
And again, just a personal observation, and my perception could be wrong, but it seems to me the lengthy cut-and-pastes are more often opinion or commentary supportive of a particular viewpoint than "objective reporting". I myself find it more satisfying to form my own opinions of "The Facts" than to read the opinions of others regarding those "Facts", whether or not I may agree with those opinions.
There ... I just wanted to get that out. And again, that's just me; it is not "Policy", it is "My Opinion".
timber
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
blatham
This is Just one of the things that the congressman said.
Speaking at a Northern Virginia forum a week ago, Moran said, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. ... The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.”
In other words if it were not for the Jews we would not be attacking Iraq. How would you interprate that remark. That is only one of his statements. I will leave it to you to find and read the rest of his remarks.
au1929 wrote:Frank
You are running true to form. Had you expressed any other view it would have been out of character.
COMMENT:
Well you aren't, Goldie. At least not in the quoted sentence. (Which I consider out of character for you!)
If a person has something specific to say to another poster, I think it should be said in a way that makes statement clear -- and the reponders intentions clear. You certainly didn't do that here.
I suspect you have a problem with what I said -- but of course, the way you worded your sentence, you could reasonably deny anything I say about it.
If there was something I said in my last post with which you disagree -- just mention what you disagree with and we can discuss it. If you think that what I had to say, you could simply say: "Wow! That was brilliant" -- and I would thank you and put it to bed.
dys: I agree with you! :wink:
Sorry, Timber. I worried about the length of the excerpts and was fully aware of the problem. But precisely because Harpers' articles aren't usually available online (sometimes they are posted several months later), and because I think this piece has particular relevance to the discussion, I posted it but took care to reduce the font size hoping that would help the situation. I wanted to give everyone enough of a "taste" of it to entice them into getting hold of a copy and reading the whole thing!
However, I think you're quite wrong about the "facts" in this case. This article was written by someone who spent time with the group in question and reported from the inside, I think, quite thoroughly and credibly. Harpers has a stellar reputation and is an old, old rag -- I don't think it would throw its lot in with a charlatan (in spite of his name!). What do you think, Blatham?
Actually, Blatham, I don't think the damage the "Family" is causing is limited to this country. The "Family" seem to have managed to get their tentacles around much of the rest of the world -- certainly the kids they draw into the youth group come from all over. Perhaps the evident nervousness of many of our allies and others has been exacerbated by this latter-day crusade of self-appointed (and incredibly self-righteous!) imperialist "saints."
And finally, I don't think the "Jewish community" which supports Zionism is as dangerous as the "Family" described in the Harpers article. However, when a group of co-religionists act politically as a community to further the interests of their religion or the nation they consider a religious fiefdom, then they shouldn't cry foul when people who oppose them politically say so. I have not seen Moran's statement in print (the NYTimes didn't have it in quotes) but if Au's quote (?) above is verbatim, then I'd have to say I agree with Moran's statement. He doesn't say (in your quote, Au) that the Jews are responsible for Iraq, but rather that they have influence in the situation and "could change the direction of where this is going..."
Thanks, ci. I thought it was too -- which, obviously, was one of the reasons I included it as a choice.
I suspect Goldie won't choose that option.
Quote:The only reason for the curbs on embryonic stem cell research is Bush's imposition or his religious beliefs on the Issue.
So no one can be against using embryonic stem cells for any other reason?
Quote:Off topic, sorta, and not to be construed as any sort of "Statement of Official Position", but I would prefer links to publicly available articles where possible as opposed to lengthy cut-and-pastes ... it saves bandwidth. No big deal, really, just a personal observation.
I thought that was requested/suggested in the guidelines.
Tartarin
The evangelical community is very well connected and has been for some time. For example, we have a school board in a neighboring municipality which has been successfully dominated by local evangelicals, and their press releases are often word for word duplicates of releases out of the US. I think timber ought to pick up the magazine and read the piece. It is not at all an unbalanced article, and bloody revelatory. If one considers it possible that separation of church and state is actually a potential problem - that is, that violations CAN actually occur in the real world - then maybe one ought to be alert for real world instances. Like jeepers, hey.
Tres
Yes, the guidelines do recommend a variety of sources and viewpoints added to the discussion. I have it on good authority that the author of those guidelines had an arm wrestle with timber, and that the author won (hands down?), and that timber suffered a whuppin of biblical proportions (really really big cubits), and so the wording stayed.
blatham - I was referring to the request that lengthy citations (copied and pasted) be avoided--one that many people completely ignore.
I personally perfer short quotations and a citation link because it helps flow AND keeps people honest.
the problem of posting only links
Tres, the problem of only posting links and not an entire article is that the source may only be available for a short period, sometimes only one day. Frustrated late readers cannot access the entire article. So one just has to try the best method available.
BBB
c.i.
