The US, UN & Iraq III

Dumb and dangerous.

I believe that people on both sides of the Iraq intervention issue are seeing connections among their opponents that may not exist at all.

While it may be true that some identifiable Christians are very vocal in their support of the Iraq intervention, and some of them are equally vocal supporters of an expanded Israel, it is not true that this is a characteristic of all Christians or of Christianity for that matter. Indeed many take the opposing views on both issues.

Some irreligious people can be found on both sides of both of these issues as well. Singling out Christians who support (say) an expanded Israel, by those who take an opposing view, and declaring that it is some kind of a Christian conspiracy makes about as much sense as saying that there is a liberal, secular conspiracy seeking the destruction of Israel. Same goes for support and opposition to the foreign policies of this administration.

There are growing tensions in our society between "traditional" values and the aspirations of people looking for greater personal freedom on issues such as abortion, on the need for new definitions of the status of homosexuals in civil unions and in the law, as well as many other like issues. Polarization on these issues does not contribute to their resolution or the development of any synthesis. It is my impression that both sides in these debates have contributed equally to that polarization.

Linking Christianity to a slavish support if the policies of the current administration, or even to the policies themselves makes no more sense than linking irreligion to the opposition. Both are absurd and harmful.

It's also called bigotry.

Slinging mud to prove a point is not uncommon.

True, but were one to assert a linkage to race, gender or sexual orientation in the way people are with religion here, and I think we'd call it what it is, so let's be consistent and denounce bigotry when it rears its head in any form.

What's bigotry?

Can you define it for the purposes of this forum?

For the purposes of the English and American languages, bigotry is the belief that one is the member of a superior group. Given that, i would suggest that posters from neither side of this debate should introduce the term, for the potential embarrassment it could bring upon them.

Just continue to make the distinction between Christians and "Christians." We all know the difference. There is nothing bigoted about dumping on (driving over the edge into perdition, preferably) "Christians" -- those vinyl-haired anti-Christs who permeate much of our culture. They have got to go, and the sooner the better. The real problem with real Christians is that they are not doing anything about it (gee, it's too complicated, they say). Using port manteau words and phrases gets us into trouble here -- need to be more specific.

Weren't you a superior dog last time I looked!

US 'is an empire in denial'


The United States is a "danger to the world" because of its denial that it is a military and economic empire, according to Niall Ferguson, historian and new-found darling of the American right.


http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,968533,00.html

Bigotry is to be attached obstinately and zealously to an opinion that you do not entertain. :wink:

"The state of mind of someone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

According to Merriam Webster dictionary

That must include most of us at some time and all faith based belief systems permanently.

An aside to this:

Le dictoinaire Hachette 'declares bigot to be of English origin

while Merriam Webster thinks it to be French

Hypocrite and bornee certainly do it. I always thought religion was a way of explaining one's existence to oneself, not a way of explaining everyone else's existence to them, too. One of the great things, gradually disappearing, about the US (among other democratic countries) has been its ability to absorb and tolerate The Other while maintaining common political values. When intolerance dominates our politics, as it does now, we lose democracy -- which I believe we have. I no longer think it's "in the works," or "at risk," but a done deal. The radical right has used democracy against itself. In my view this is NOT to be tolerated, and toleration of it in the name of political equity or some sort of lazy politesse is just... incredibly stupid.

Thanks Walter, I think that settles it, German it is then (!)

Yiddish, Steve: "begotisch".

Setanta - Good definition. You and others make a valid point in that there is not much useful discussion likely to flow from my use of the word here. Perhaps we can all agree that using such terms here is not conducive to a useful discussion and avoid them altogether.

yep agree scat now:

"UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says he has seen evidence, not yet available to the public, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Two things

1. Why was it not available before the war?
2. Note tense change, before war "has" after war "had"

Now if very moderate well balanced cool analytical people like me (!) (I call on Herr Walter for a character reference here) are getting very ******** off with Blair's disembling, I don't want to think of the heated private words at the top eschelon of the party. I think its the beginning of the end for Tony Blair.

should have said above quote from BBC tonight

I didn't bother reading the article since it sounded like trash and I don't care for op-ed in the first place.

But in case "Biblical Patriotism" is not something mentioned exclusively in that article could you tell me what you mean? I ahve heard of no such creature.

Wish we could say the same about W, Steve.