(2006-09-18) — A day after violent Muslim riots spurred Pope Benedict XVI to apologize for implying that Islam has brought more evil to the world, the Pontiff today agreed to consider a petition to add the name of Islam’s founder to the pantheon of Roman Catholic saints.
A Vatican spokesman said that, as part of the Holy Father’s self-imposed penance to atone for his ill-advised remarks about Muhammad, he has given permission for the Roman Catholic church to investigate canonizing the founder of one of the world’s three great monotheistic religions.
Vatican researchers said the application is already being processed and they need only find one more verifiable after-death miracle attributed to Muhammad.
“The first is indisputable,” a Vatican source said, “We already have ample evidence that the long-dead prophet miraculously caused a major religious leader, with a reputation for infallibility, to apologize for telling the truth.”
155 responses so far ↓
1 camojack // Sep 18, 2006 at 6:51 am
Oy vey…
2 MargeinMI // Sep 18, 2006 at 6:54 am
God Bless America!
3 basil's blog » Blogrolling 2006-09-18 // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:14 am
[...] ScrappleFace has the details on the Pope's response. [...]
4 tomg // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:48 am
The answer is in already, and its……..!
Nope.
Faith was good, Works were a bit shy of the mark.
5 Fred Sinclair // Sep 18, 2006 at 8:21 am
The MSM (NBC) is reporting that the Pope has apologized for what he said.
I’ve heard that he apologized for people who got their feeling hurt by what he said, for the furor that has erupted. - Not for WHAT he said.
Fred Sinclair, Heirborn Ranger
6 Rock Slatestone // Sep 18, 2006 at 8:24 am
“But wait there is more. You will also receive this certificate of authenticity. And if you act now you will receive this lovely set of four coffee mugs.”
7 MargeinMI // Sep 18, 2006 at 8:30 am
“Apply [cluebat] directly to the forehead [of the Islamofacist]”
Apply [cluebat] directly to the forehead [of the Islamofacist]
Apply [cluebat] directly to the foreheaad [of the Isloamofacist]
8 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:06 am
Miracle? I got your miracle.
Convincing millions that the Religion of Psychosis is the Religion of Peace, despite all evidence.
Now that’s a miracle.
9 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:08 am
Hmmmmm, must be the first case of a saint destined for hell.
You know, after seeing all the violence and hate in the Muslim street, I bet a lot of rational people are convinced Islam is indeed the “religion of peace”.
10 Just Ranting // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:35 am
Who knows, he may even get around to beatifying other great christian leaders like Pat “send money or God is gonna kill me” or Jimmy “the devil made me do her” Swaggart, and Jim & Tammy Faye “I need to repair the gold faucets in my toilet so I can remove this $800 makeup job at the end of the day” Baker. But then there are so many like them out there where would he begin. Halleluia!!! Do I hear an AMEN from you on that one Scott?
BTW, Scott, maybe you can share what denomination you belong to so we can all “satarize” it once in a while.
11 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:38 am
JL3rd
From last page-since we are on the same heartbeat. Duh, I know the teachings are not Biblical, but many religions have their own little segments of belief that the church next door does not believe in.
Now that I have wiped the sleep from my eyes, my Catholic friend was talking about, I believe, Virgin of Fatima. I have heard about certain writings that are spoke about, but my friend jibber-jabbered on about Popes, new age and other things. She is nearly besides herself with the controversy from the Vatican.
I guess many Protestants do no understand the fervor that some people show in this area and I am just trying to understand my dear frenzied friend,
P.S. She also believes in UFO’s and dead people walking about with high frequency energy. sigh
12 boberinagain // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:49 am
Good stuff as always Scott.
I too took his “apology” more as a “sorry if my words offended” rather than “the words were wrong”
As well it should have been. The words were not wrong.
Morning gang!
13 Shelly // Sep 18, 2006 at 10:24 am
You have to love a religion that wants to prove to the world that the Pope’s linking them to violence is wrong by committing violence around the world, and apparently murdering a Nun. And I think the hypocrisy of liberals is astounding!
14 red satellites // Sep 18, 2006 at 10:30 am
Good morning Scrapplers,
RP: ‘Religion of Psychosis’- Outstanding!
Another fine day here in LA…despite George Clooney….
15 Just Ranting // Sep 18, 2006 at 10:31 am
God Bless and welcome into eternal peace the soul of Sister Leonella. She devoted the 38 years of her life to educating children in Kenya and Somalia. She lived a life of self sacrifice to bring God’s light to the poorest on earth. She is a true martyr for the Christian faith. While Islamic facists attempt to prove the Pope right by winning hearts and minds one bullet at a time, Sister Leonella’s chose the weapons of education and the faith in Christ. May the victory ultimately be hers to the glory of the Lord whom she humbly served.
16 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:25 am
Iran leader says Pope remarks part of US-Israeli conspiracy…
I guess Islamofascists have their moonbats, too. Another conspiracy theory, just what the world needs from liberals and Muslim fanatics.
Anti-U.S. allies back Iran nukes…
Well, duuuh, of course they do. I mean, don’t inmates in asylums often look to other insane inmates for validation?
Polls Show GOP Closing Gap, Bush’s Approval Rating Higher…
How did this one get past the liberal editors?
Gertz book: China recruited three CIA officers
It happened under previous administrations including the Clinton Administration … BUT IT’S STILL BU$HITLER’S FAULT!
17 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:27 am
Just Ranting,
I think the Muslim world has a different definition of “peace” than we do. In fact, one wonders how many moons and moon gods circle their planet.
18 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:31 am
Do not! make fun of The Prophet if you know what’s good for you …
On September 5 he began a hunger strike, saying that he intends to fast until death.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/09/a_bad_joke.html
19 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:41 am
Darthmeister
Thanks for your info at the other page. Maybe now I can figure out what in tarnation my friend is talking about.
Much good day to you!
20 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:49 am
Hmm, ads on top of the blog. “666 This Is It” the other side is “Why Mommy is a Dingbat Democrat.”
Seems to be a correlation between the two. The Mommy book is a hoot. You have to talk at a level of a three year old to make a liberal understand why they think the way they do.
21 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:49 am
hello?
22 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 12:16 pm
How about “Dingbatocrat”, Ms RightWing?
My favorite right now is “Dhimmiecrat” … A DemDonk who sucks-up and defends Muslim fundamentalists by always blaming America or George Bush.
Of course there is Repugs, Rethugs, RethugliKKKan, etc.
“Why engage in a reasoned discourse (as if that’s possible with conspiracy-driven moonbats) when good ol’ name calling will often work even betterl?” Anon
23 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 12:17 pm
…Bush just stole my post!
24 mccain.blogging // Sep 18, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“Why the Pope Apologized”
http://www.rightlinx.com/?p=218
25 rightlinx.com » Blog Archive » Why the Pope Apologized // Sep 18, 2006 at 12:45 pm
[...] Other blogging: Malkin OTB bainbridge.com scrappleface scrappleface again [...]
26 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 1:03 pm
NAIROBI, Kenya~~Sister Leonella, a nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in volatile regions of Africa, used to joke that there was a bullet with her name engraved on it in Somalia. When the bullet came, she used her last breaths to forgive those responsible.
“I forgive, I forgive,” she whispered in her native Italian just before she died, the Rev. Maloba Wesonga told The Associated Press at the nun’s memorial mass in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, on Monday.
27 Cassandra // Sep 18, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Actually, as the wife of an Artillery officer, I’m not sure I see anything particularly unfitting in the idea of “cannonizing” old Muhammed.
What the heck…load him up. I see no harm in it.
28 Maggie // Sep 18, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Who put the ‘ham’ in Muhammad?
29 Maggie // Sep 18, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Cass…..LMHO……lock and load.
30 tomg // Sep 18, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Well, if you Muslims can raise the medieval guy from the dead, we’ll try to get an apology out of him.
If quoting him is a death sentence, then all I have to say is: “What exactly is the quote that has you so upset?”
31 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Note to Muslims:
How can we infidels have an open and honest dialogue with you when the starting point on your end is our death?
32 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 3:08 pm
So! … Holy Father! How’s that apology thing goin’ for ya! Workin’ yet?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060918/ids_photos_india_wl/ra3277519891.jpg
Ahhh …
33 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Don’t you dare suggest that Islam is violent!
We’ll f*&#^n% KILL you !#!*!
34 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Sounds like wishful thinking on his part:
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 18 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Monday Iraq was in grave danger of descending into civil war if present trends continue.
In a stark warning to an international aid conference, Annan said: “If current patterns of alienation and violence persist much longer, there is a grave danger that the Iraqi state will break down, possibly in the midst of full-scale civil war.”
35 Effeminem // Sep 18, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hm, what would be a good sector to invest in to hedge against Armageddon?
36 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 4:14 pm
How can anyone suggest that the Islamic world has a violence problem?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20436609-2703,00.html
According to Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, a woman is raped every two hours and there is a gang rape every eight hours in Pakistan.
37 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 5:21 pm
In this LA Times commentary, a liberal criticizes liberals for having their heads in the sand … or elsewhere.
Excellent read though the author continues to cling to some liberal sacred cows.
38 Just Ranting // Sep 18, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Effeminem re: 35
Try Matt 6:19-21
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Greatest retirement program ever.
39 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 5:39 pm
RedPepper,
So typical of real world Muslim sharia. A woman is raped by Muslim thugs and she’s the one thrown in jail for having sex outside of marriage. This is just another classic example of the insanity of Islamic law that you would think would motivate the feminazis nags in this country to go on the warpath against. I’ve yet to hear one NAG call Islam a mysogynist religion, though they’ve said the same about Christianity even though it isn’t true. Once again liberals embracing a despicable double-standard.
And we haven’t even started talking about honor killings , beating wives and women in general, and female circumcision.
Muslims will try to obfuscate by claiming these practices aren’t mandated by Islam, true enough. But the fact of the matter is these practices are not uncommon and quite consistent with the latent misogyny of Islamic teaching.
Just were is the liberal outrage toward all this inhumanity? **crickets chirping**
40 antodav // Sep 18, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Anyone who has ever heard of the Moors, the Ottomans, or the Mughal Empire knows that what the medieval Byzantine Emperor whom the Pope quoted said is complete truth-despite how the Muslim world may try to deny it now, and pretend as if the Crusades were completely unprovoked and not a response to centuries of Islamic aggression.
To quote They Might Be Giants:
Istanbul was Constantinople.
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople.
Been a long time gone, Constantinople.
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks….
But then again, people’s knowledge of history nowadays isn’t quite what it used to be.
Usually I don’t like Pope Benedict XVI. But this is one situation where I will actually stand with the Church and defend him. Islam is not a religion of peace and it never has been.
41 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:24 pm
#38 Darthmeister: Where, for that matter, are the much-touted “moderate muslims” calling for calm?
Not here:
… Iran’s supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff’s remarks on Islam.
Protests broke out in South Asia and Indonesia, with angry Muslims saying Benedict’s statement of regret a day earlier did not go far enough. In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.
Islamic leaders around the world issued more condemnations of the pope’s comments …
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4196075.html
An influential Egyptian cleric, Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, called for protests after weekly prayers on Friday, but maintained they should be peaceful.
That’s the lone “moderate” this story actually cites.
42 prettyold // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:33 pm
I decided to do a little research about ‘assassination of Pope’ ,and this isn’t the first time a rabid frothing Muslim tried to kill the Pope. Of course , Mehmet(Mohammed)Ali Agca, was a Turk,and the Italians later let him go.
A funny thing ,when I googled ,I also got the story Ms RightWing was speaking of ,and some sort of weird stuff about Freemasonry. Then there were all the conspiracy theories about the USSR,the Jesuits ,the CIA,you name ‘em. It was still one or more sweet reasonable loving Muslim Males seeking peace .
Then a few years earlier we had the Robert kennedy Assassination by (gasp)yet another Muslim Male,a Palestinian,Sirhan Sirhan.
So this war started even before Clinton was President.
43 prettyold // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Maybe those strangely elusive creatures called “Moderate Muslims” are just waiting around to see which way the wind is going to blow. If it starts to look as though the West is really going to get tough and kill all the Jihadists,they will come out all dewy-eyed ,with flowers for us, to tell us how much they always wanted us to win . If OTOH ,it looks like the wimps and wusses of the Liberal Left ,will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,they will join in on the killing rampage with great glee and joy.
44 Beerme // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:46 pm
He can be the patron saint of suicide bombers…
45 Darthmeister // Sep 18, 2006 at 7:47 pm
I fear you may be right, prettyold. The thought had crossed my mind about “moderate Muslims” with their fingers to the wind. The Koran is pretty emphatic about Muslims waiting until they had military superiority and then smoting the infidels with the sword.
46 RedPepper // Sep 18, 2006 at 8:01 pm
A tiny minority of moderate Muslims are attempting to hijack the religion by distorting Islam’s message of martyrdom, submission and jihad.
47 The Great Santini // Sep 18, 2006 at 8:46 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ PEACEFUL ISLAMIC WORLD ♪ ♪ ♪
[Tune: “What a Wonderful Worldâ€, music and lyrics by George Weiss and Bob Thiele, performed by Louis Armstrong; (© 2006, Santini Serenades)]
[Verse]
I hear howls of hate, Katyushas too
Muslims despise Il Papa, the Jews
And I think to myself, peaceful Islamic world
[Verse]
Their faces turn blue, replete with spite
They scream, “God is great!â€, with hearts dark as night
And I think to myself, peaceful Islamic world
[Bridge]
Muslims mum about nun’s murder…Cartoons? They go hog-wild!
They exorcise their demons, fulminating, spewing bile
Demonstrate, shake their fists, get incited on cue
“Allahu akbar!†means, “We’ll kill you!â€
[Verse]
Muslims are babies, malevolent
Pope’s dhimmi grovel feeds more resentment
And I think to myself, peaceful Islamic world
[Bridge]
The monochrome rainbow, in Q’ran painted black
Makes Muslims hurl invective, inveigh, and mount attacks
How reflexively backward, always sulking, uncouth
Stone-age zeitgeist can’t handle the truth
[Verse]
Heads explode in outrage at women’s dress
Shar’ia exists to enslave and oppress
And I think to myself, peaceful Islamic world
[Tag]
And I think to myself…evil Islamic world
O-o-o-oh, yeah….
48 PanamaRed // Sep 18, 2006 at 8:57 pm
“Roll out the warheads, we”ll have a mushroom of fun!” You can’t argue with a mad dog and if the litter is infected they all have to die. I’ll debate whether I was a madman or not with my family, not over my family.
49 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:07 pm
This is pretty good-got it from Michelle Malkin-from HotAir.com.
It does a fairly good job of breaking things down to basics.
50 mig // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:20 pm
# 11 Ms. RW she is probably catholic in name only.
51 myword // Sep 18, 2006 at 9:33 pm
This is interesting. It appears Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated by a Muslim, a Palestinian extremist.
prettyold is right on.
http://crimemagazine.com/05/sirhansirhan,0906-5.htm
52 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09 pm
mig
I would say you are right. I disagree with her on many points, including all aspects of religion. As an observer of people and listener of the way people think out loud, I find myself fascinated with her.
When we sat and watched all 9 gazillion minutes of The Lord of The Ring, I thought, ah, she gets it, but several weeks later it is mantra-foe’s or ufer-o’s or what have you.
Everyone should have such a friend, as she keeps you on your toes. Rose colored glasses, yup, but she is a vast universe of writing material
53 Godfrey // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:02 pm
RedPepper re #36:
According to Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, a woman is raped every two hours and there is a gang rape every eight hours in Pakistan.
Horrible as that is, we should put it in context; there were 94,635 rapes in the United States in 2004 (last available data). That’s nearly 260 per day…or eleven rapes per hour in a nation of 299 million.
Pakistan, at .5 rapes per hour among a population of 166 million, has a far lower rate than we do. Does that in turn suggest that the democratic world has a violence problem?
Or perhaps it’s humanity that has the problem—particularly uneducated, Third-World humanity.
Of course, the “reasons” (if they can be called such) for raping women in Pakistan are pretty chilling, as is the tendency to make the affair a group effort: “a mother and daughter in a rural area had been abducted and gang-raped for 12 days because the daughter continued her schooling in defiance of villagers in her home near Multan.”
More than anything I think such excesses—religious or otherwise—have always been a way for sexual deviants to satisfy their desires. The ideology is merely an excuse for the behavior.
Hank re #39: “I’ve yet to hear one NAG call Islam a mysogynist religion, though they’ve said the same about Christianity even though it isn’t true.”
This is a great example of that point I made a few weeks ago: you actually *can* find “latent misogyny” in Christianity if you want to go looking for it (at least insomuch as women are considered in the Bible to be subordinate to their husbands). Given its ancient, prehistoric roots, this is to be expected. But Western society has outgrown the idea that women are second-class citizens…and Western society is made up primarily of Christians. Given the relative recency of this development it seems that it occurred not because of Christianity but in spite of it. So the religion has “evolved” along with the people who practice it.
I do agree with you, of course, on the double standard presented by NOW feminists who ignore the deplorable status of women in Islamic societies. You might enjoy Tammy Bruce’s treatment of the subject as a lesbian and a former feminist who became appalled at the dichotomy within the movement.
54 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her~~Ephesians 5:25
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.~~Ephesians 5:28
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.~~Colossians 3:19
55 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:29 pm
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.~~Galatians 3:28
56 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:34 pm
John 13:34, 35; Romans 12:10; Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4:2; Hebrews 10:24; 1Peter 1:22; 1Peter 3:8; 1John 3:11; 1John 3:23; 1John 4:7; 1John 4:11, 12; 2John 1:15.
57 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 18, 2006 at 11:42 pm
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’”?~~Matthew 19:4-5
God’s Word has not “evolved”-never has, never will.
58 Godfrey // Sep 19, 2006 at 12:57 am
Can someone reboot the Quot-a-matic? It seems to be stuck again.
JL3: God’s Word has not “evolvedâ€â€“never has, never will.
Well, that’s arguable. But it’s fairly obvious that the perspectives of the people practicing the religion have evolved considerably since the old wine-and-sandal days. Much of what used to be considered acceptable behavior back then would now be called ugly names like “genocide” and “slavery”. As philosophy and science advance, the interpretation of “God’s Word” has changes too…that’s all I’m saying.
Perhaps one day Islam’s adherents will “evolve” as well.
59 R.A.M. // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:20 am
Muhammad a Saint?
Moe Howard of the “Three Stooges” who make a better one!
60 R.A.M. // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:23 am
who=would
61 camojack // Sep 19, 2006 at 3:54 am
Reluctant as I am to agree with “God-free”:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
(1 Timothy 2:11-15 New International Version)
What are we to make of that?!
62 Effeminem // Sep 19, 2006 at 3:56 am
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Aerospace and biomedical, huh?
63 camojack // Sep 19, 2006 at 3:57 am
Muhammad a Saint?
Moe Howard of the “Three Stooges†who make a better one!
Comment by R.A.M. — September 19, 2006 @ 1:20 am
R.A.M.:
You mean like THIS?
64 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 8:32 am
Horrible as that is, we should put it in context; there were 94,635 rapes in the United States in 2004 (last available data). That’s nearly 260 per day…or eleven rapes per hour in a nation of 299 million.
Godfrey, I believe these are ritualistic rapes. Islam teaches women are essentially chattel. 99.9 of rapes in America is a result of pure criminal hate with nothing to do with either atheist evolutionary thought (I’m just spreading my seed and improving the human stock) or the Judeo-Christian thought (which teaches all rape, even consentual fornication is wrong).
Under Islam, ritualistic rape is not even considered a crime, particularly if its committed on an infidel woman. But Islamists have become a little more sophisticated and when a high profile case does reach the public eye, the rapist is “punished” in a show trial, but that’s about all. The same goes for criminal murder when it comes to infidels.
I find it rather interesting how you blur the lines between those rituals and practices which are allowed (though maybe not specifically taught in the Koran, like female circumcision) in Islamic cultures and those same acts which are considered outright crimes in western nations.
Yet you are quick to wring your hands “that we don’t want to lower ourselves to their standards” when we, that is the American military, isn’t doing anything which would lower us to the standards of an enemy that beheads, murders, and mutilates specifically for the cause of Allah. When our soldiers commit murder or war atrocities, they are hauled before a military tribunal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When Islamofascist commit crimes they go unpunished because its a part of jihad. Why do you continue to engage in your false moral equivalences in both directions now?
As to your claim of “latent” misogyny in Christianity and Judaism, once again I believe there is a difference between “latent” practices which warped men justify by bending the more nuanced teachigns of Holy Writ. In the case of Islam, there is no warping of passages. You’re allowed, no, commanded to beat women and women are said to be inferior or hold a lower position to man because man was created first. The only talk in the Bible about positions of superiority (not to be confused with positions of authority) is when the Holy Writ speaks of every man “being a little lower than the angels”. There is no Scripture, particularly in the New Testament which speaks of women by nature being inferior to man.
I suppose someone could argue there is a “latent” principle of man’s superiority in evolutionary thought since man is stronger, quicker, smarter (if we are to believe some past “studies” by self-acclaimed evolutionists) and more durable in a survival of the fittest kind of way. Add to the evolutionary mindset that a man is not made more vulnerable to predators during times of pregnancy like women … well, there you have it! The male is the superior of the species. Are you sure you want to continue down this road, Godfrey?
I’ve read the Koran. There are explicit passages which can only reinforce in the minds of males that they are superior to women and that women can be thought of as property. Please quit engaging in such slipshod false moral equivalences.
65 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:18 am
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
Hmm, looks dangerous around here. I f we sat down and shut up, the remote would be going 24 hours per day and the garbage would never get out.
66 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:32 am
Again I ask, Godfrey, do you really want to continue down that path you’ve begun to travel. Consider carefully what you say because evolutionary thought and evolutionary psychology (which is about a worthless of a “science” if there ever was one) have and does to this day postulate the possibility that rape is an evolutionary adaptation.
Now I wonder how many males have and will justify their actions by saying “My genetics made me do it”, which is on par with Flip Wilson’s “The Devil made me do it”?
Of course the “studies” dealing with this question are still ongoing, but the fact they are seriously entertaining this question is, to me, quite despicable because if they do conclude, rightly or wrongly, that rape is an evolutionary adaptation then rape would then be viewed as natural and normal. Talk about “latent” implications. I’m not aware of any serious Christian or Bible teacher in the last two thousand years who has done anything other than condemn rape as a crime and a sin.
And this evolutionary crap is even more damning.
Now, do you want to still continue down your road of false moral equivalencies, Godfrey?
67 Libby Gone // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:44 am
Sainthood?
Who is next? Lucifer?
68 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:49 am
Here’s an excellent piece about athiests who think they can understand any religion by yanking quotes out of context:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/18/when-atheists-and-secularists-quote-scripture/
I’m so tired of the people who argue that “well, yes the Koran calls for violence but so does the Bible!” I guess they use that argument to explain the many times we see Christians beheading others, blowing up women and children, fire bombing mosques, and holding up placards that say the Imam must die and that anyone insulting Christianity should be murdered by the nearest Christian, while pretending to be a “religion of peace.” There’s no difference.
69 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:51 am
For a brief moment I wondered what would be the equivalent of a Nun in Islam, then realized that there isn’t one. Women are nothing.
70 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:57 am
Here is an excellent overview of rape and Islam. Just as the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic undergirds America’s own laws, traditional culture and Constitution to a very large degree, Islam and the Koran clearly undergird Islamic cultures and regimes. That these Islamic cultures continue these debauched practices which place such a high threshold requiring four witnesses to validate a rape charge is simply medieval and inexcusable. We’re talking the 21st Century here.
And let’s say there is a gang rape. Well, there just might be four witnesses since we’re dealing with a GANG rape, but then it would be the world of those four, five, six witnesses against one woman. Guess how that case will end up under Islamic law.
71 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:10 am
RE #58 ~ You claim the Bible is no different than the Koran on its treatment of women, JLIII provides nineteen Biblical references which say otherwise, so you call him a name. That’s a typical play by liberals which never works. You may want to rethink your strategy, perhaps sticks and stones? Wait, that’s how Islam gets converts, you might not want to go there either. What tools of persuasian does one use to convince others of the correctness of their flawed suppositions?
72 red satellites // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:31 am
Good morning Scrapplers….
Cognitive Dissonant Liberals of the World Unite!PLEASE.
…that way I won’t have to run around rooting you b**tards out.
73 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:32 am
RE: #’s 61 & 65~~
I agree, taken out of context, that Scripture verse which (by the way) has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, to that point, regarding the terms “second-class” and “subordinate” being attributed to what God defines as the relationship between husbands and wives) can be manipulated to demonstrate all sorts of negative connotations.
However, in context, it does not (and can not) have the alluded to prejudicial aspects-particularly considering the verses I cited in posts #54-57.
74 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:43 am
Anyway, France, I guess, has decided to go ahead and switch sides now-sort of a preemptive surrender.
It appears they consider UN Resolutions to be written with pencil and they can go back and erase stuff.
75 RedPepper // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:44 am
#53 Godfrey: Pakistan’s incidence of rape may be lower than in the U.S. (though I would be extremely careful in making such comparisons: accuracy of stats etc.), but that was really not part of my reason for posting that story; compare the way victims are treated in two societies if you wish to make comparisons.
As for the general position of women in the two religions, compare the verses quoted by JL3 and others (yes, you too, camojack!) with this quote from the Q’ran (emphasis added):
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other,
and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. — Q 4:34
There are many more interesting and relevant quotes, but I’m not as organized as JL3!
76 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:49 am
Shelly, that was an excellent link to HotAir. It’s good to see other fair-minded people understanding the nuance and context of biblical teaching. I particularly enjoyed the truth that Christians don’t live under the laws enunciated in Leviticus … that was for the Jews. Something we’ve had to point out to skeptics time and time again here at Scrappleface.
Seculars have a difficult if not impossible time understanding how the law of Moses could be fulfilled in the Lamb of God on the cross and that Christians live in liberty, having the moral laws of God inscribed on their hearts, yet told not to turn liberty into moral license (which is exactly what uber-liberals have done with respect to their social agenda). The law of Moses was a tutor to bring us to Messiah. The OT ordinances and regulations in all their permutations, as good and perfect as they were for the Hebrew children, were the shadow of good things to come, Messiah is the substance. God is a God of order, he didn’t send Jesus the day after the fall, God had a plan and the children of Israel were a part of the plan, they weren’t the plan itself.
As Peter warned his listeners about the more complex and naunced teachings of Paul, “There are some difficult things which Paul teaches that the untaught and unstable distort to their own destruction.” And Peter was speaking to Christians … how much more does the teaching ring true when applied to skeptics and agnostics? I’ve yet to meet one atheist who has honestly and consistently tried to understand the Bible IN CONTEXT. I didn’t as a practical atheist myself, so I guess I shouldn’t expect it of others.
And I would be the first to admit that there are biblical teachings which I don’t fully understand - like that regarding “baptisms for the dead” - but in those cases I think the appropriate rule of thumb is not to major on the minor points of Scripture.
But try to hold an atheist/agnostic/skeptic/evolutionist accountable for the logical social consequences of their evolutionary teaching, you’ll get an apologia that borders on blind rationalization.
I’m waiting to hear Godfrey’s response (he’s no liberal, Shelly, but he certainly buys into many atheist liberal criticisms of Christianity) because there is one more card on my part to play in his rush down his path of false equivalences and double-standards.
77 Just Ranting // Sep 19, 2006 at 10:51 am
Effeminen re: 62
LOL. Yeah, something like that, only better.
A lot more stable than the current investment craze started by that 70’s TV show “Mork and Mindy”, Nanoo-Nanootechnology.
78 Hawkeye // Sep 19, 2006 at 11:04 am
Funny as always Scott!
Here’s my not-so-funny take on it…
http://viewhigh.blogspot.com/2006/09/lets-demand-apology.html
Best regards,
79 RedPepper // Sep 19, 2006 at 11:09 am
Another article which addresses the rape issue:
This phenomenon of Islamic sexual violence against women should be treated as the urgent, violent, repressive epidemic it is. Instead, journalists, academics, and politicians ignore it, rationalize it, or ostracize those who dare discuss it.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20646
Caution: disturbing content.
80 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 11:13 am
Amazing:
Hurricane Gordon is expected to hit Spain/Portugal late tomorrow/early Thursday as a Tropical Storm.
From the coast of Africa, east almost to the Carribean, then west back to Europe.
81 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 11:23 am
Hawkeye, excellent column! If only…
82 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 11:25 am
RE #80 ~ Global warming.
83 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 11:35 am
The Pope battles dhimmitude. Will he win?
84 Godfrey // Sep 19, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Ack! I just checked in and I wish I had more time to fully answer some of the succinct points made here.
Suffice to say that I am not defending Islam necessarily…just trying to put things in context. My view differs from many of those here only in that I blame the men practicing the religion rather than the religion itself. I understand that ritual rape is tied to religion while “normal” rape (what a term!) is a display of power and often of hatred. To the victim, of course, these things are academic.
Also, regarding the Bible’s “misogyny”…I was pretty careful to say “insomuch as women are considered in the Bible to be subordinate to their husbands”. I never said the Bible condoned rape…only that it was common in all cultures at the time to consider women as secondary citizens.
For examples of this plz look to Camo’s quote in Timothy (there are a few more such quotes in Timothy) as well as some of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. I’ll cite them later if you like but I’m on my way out the door and can’t look them up just now.
Oh, and Shelly re: #71: are you callin’ me a liberal? Them’s fightin’ words…
85 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Suffice to say that I am not defending Islam necessarily…just trying to put things in context. My view differs from many of those here only in that I blame the men practicing the religion rather than the religion itself.
We know you weren’t defending Islam, Godfrey, it’s just that you started attacking Christianity with a false moral equivalences, probably to “put us in our place”, I guess.
Clearly there is nothing in the Bible which explicitly teaches, as the Koran does, that women are inferior to men, can be beaten to a state of righteousness, or raped with virtual impunity unless there are four other male believers to substantiate the woman’s side of the story. Whereas a Muslim merely needs to take the half-step to justify his behavior toward women, the Christian has to take a step-and-a-half and totally twist the Bible to justify any kind of misogyny.
It must be an unconscious reflex on your part to have dragged Christianity into our observations about Islam. And I was merely returning the favor by dragging atheistic evolutionary thought into the argument. So how does it feel? And just how do you distance yourself from this new research about rape possibly being an “evolutionary adaptation” or an “asymetrical genetic survival trait”? A similiar postulate has NEVER been raised in Christian circles the last two thousand years. Rape is a sin, a criminal act … period. There is nothing “evolutionary” or “natural” about it.
BTW, why do you think Islamic cleverly included the caveat about a rape having to be witnessed by four Muslim males? That alone speaks of a hidden misogyny to me.
86 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Also, regarding the Bible’s “misogynyâ€â€¦I was pretty careful to say “insomuch as women are considered in the Bible to be subordinate to their husbandsâ€. I never said the Bible condoned rape…only that it was common in all cultures at the time to consider women as secondary citizens.
Do you understand authority, Godfrey? The Bible does not teach women are “subordinate”, at least not in the negative sense you use it. Is a General in the armed forces a “better man” than say a private by merely being in authority of the private? God forbid. Often it can be said the private is a better man, particularly if the General is a jerk. That’s why they say you salute the uniform and not the man. See, even our own culture has such nuances about “authority”.
Evangelical Christians take a strict and very traditional view of the nature of marriage. For the majority of Christians, marriage is the only appropriate channel for sexual expression and divorce is permissible, if at all, only in very specific circumstances such as infidelity. Marriage is seen as a solemn covenant between not only the man and woman but also the couple and God.
This traditionalist view sees the husband as having loving authority over the wife as the servant-leader of the household in following with Christ’s example. The wife’s role is to cheerfully submit to this authority where it does not conflict with her conscience or with biblical teaching. The husband’s headship is a means to ensure his wife’s growth and development as a person within the marriage relationship. The wife’s submission is seen in the context of Paul’s command in Ephesians 5:21 for all Christians to submit to one another and to proper authority. Together these form a meaningful and beautiful picture of Christ’s relationship with The Church, the body of believers.
The institution of marriage reaffirms the reality that Christ is the head of the Church and loves her even to the point of dying for her.
This is my understanding of biblical authority being exercise within the covenant of marriage. I have no “authority” over other women unless I’m someone else higher up the pay scale. And even then that “authority” is also limited, as it should be.
87 mig // Sep 19, 2006 at 12:54 pm
“with a reputation for being infallibility.”
Infallibility does not mean impeccablity. Fundamenatlist and bible christians often assume that Catholics believe the Pope cannot sin. The teachings of infalliblity are misunderstood by those outside the church. And now that liberals are hounding the doors, many who claim to be catholics don’t believe in catholicism at all but have fused a warped sense of buddha and new ageism into ‘thier definition’ of catholicism and it is unrecognizable especially by those that know the faith. Infallibility ‘applies only to official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.’
Just so you know.
Carry on without me. Time for an oil change in the car…
88 Libby Gone // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Will the philosophy of reality ever rear its beautiful head?
Regardless of religious beliefs, creed, culture, country…….What has caused mankind to forget we all come into this world and leave it the same way. The journey in between is A PERSONAL CHOICE and not someone elses fault. NO MATTER HOW YOU ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE OFFENDED BY SOMEONES REMARKS.
89 Hawkeye // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Thanks Shelly.
90 Hawkeye // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Libby,
Will the philosophy of reality ever rear its beautiful head?
Great line.
Regards,
91 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I wonder how a completely logical, dispassionate mind can look at the natural world and ever come up with these bedrock principles of civil society: “Love thy Creator with all your heart, mind and soul. Similarly love they neighbor as thyself”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “As the Savior loved the Church, in the same way love thy wife and give your life for her.” Revealed truth from a divine source.
So what great principles of social interaction can be inferred from the naturalistic paradigm as delivered by the high priests of evolution? “Love your wife as monogamous swans love one another”? “It’s a dog-eat-dog world so grab for all the gusto you can”? “Love and beauty are nothing more than quaint social constructs, they are but illusions in the universe of random causes”? “Life is but one big Survivor show, do unto others before they do unto you. Survive at all cost.” “Take what you can, otherwise someone else is going to take it anyway and gain an advantage.”
92 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Godfrey, they were meant to be.
I think Hank nailed this with the military reference. Authority and superiority are clearly two different things. I consider my husband and father the heads of my family, and don’t know why this bothers some people.
The Bible would be boring were it not for some of the fascinating stuff found throughout it. I’ve also always been amazed at the health codes found in books like Leviticus that were thousands of years ahead of germ theory. That can’t be an accident. The only gender based issue I’ve ever questioned is how a woman can be caught committing adultery alone? Now off to prepare for my Bible study group. We’re doing a wonderful study of The Gospel of Luke.
93 Darthmeister // Sep 19, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Shelly,
I don’t know what Godfrey really meant by “subordinate”, maybe I’m being unfair but I took it to imply “inferior”… i.e. if someone is my superior in authority then that somehow makes me inferior in nature, an idea which we intuitively know runs counter to Americans of all stripes, particularly Christian Americans.
Those who are either suspicious of or who have animus toward Christianity constantly mangle concepts like “subordinate” and “submission” or even “community” vs “communism”. Liberal atheists and secular humanists glibly talk about Jesus being a latent communist who embraced socialist concepts when in actuality He was someone who promoted “a self-governing community under God”, a concept the American founders enthusiastically embraced since they understood that a people unable to discipline and govern itself according to the Ten Commandments of God eventually gives rise to tyrannical government.
94 RedPepper // Sep 19, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I found one! I found a story about a “moderate” Muslim!
Over the past several weeks, Choudhury was optimistic that the government would drop the charges, which Bangladesh officials have admitted on many occasions to be false.
http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2040
95 Deema // Sep 19, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Think of all the Catholic schools in Michigan that can change their names to St. Muhamad!
All that’s needed is one more verifiable after-death miracle? I can think of at least three: the miraculous slaughter of the Berbers, the miraculous slaughter of the Byzantines, and the miraculous subjugation of the dhimmis.
Let’s go St. Mo!
One great benefit of Muhamad’s canonization, once thought impossible: the re-unification of the Roman Catholic Church with the Church of England, into the new Church of the Uma!
96 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 5:36 pm
:::::trying to picture burka-clad cheerleaders:::::
97 R.A.M. // Sep 19, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I wonder why you never hear of Muslims being called “Koran thumpers”?
Oh and BTW, “Macacca!”
Or is it “MECCA-cacca”?
98 Paulsonator // Sep 19, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Funniest ever. That was exactly what I thought when he apologized…Is not he infallible? Anyways, I created an account just to let you know how much I enjoyed that one. Thanks Scott!
99 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 7:22 pm
FYI:
The Pope is not and has never claimed to be “infallible.”
100 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 8:18 pm
101 Shelly // Sep 19, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Paulsonator, welcome! We’re glad to have a new family member. I hope you enjoy the company we keep here as much as I do.
102 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Here’s what that hypocrite had to say at the UN.
I was so glad to hear that our delegation did not sit there and listen to his doo-doo.
103 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 19, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Take your mind off the end of the world for a spell
GRANDPA’S DEADLY TOBACCY
http://shellyscafe.blogspot.com/
104 R.A.M. // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:46 am
Off topic—sorry.
After hearing what the Senate R.I.N.O.’s consider torture for the detainee’s, (sleep depravation, standing for long periods, forced to eat food they don’t like, etc), I now realize, when I was drafted in 1972, I too was tortured during basic training!
Good thing we didn’t spit on, or throw feces on our “guards” , (Drill Sgt, Company Commander), or I have a feeling we would have seen REAL TORTURE!
105 Effeminem // Sep 20, 2006 at 3:22 am
Darth,
You don’t believe in evolution.. you don’t condone rape. Why do you think it’s illogical that evolution could condone rape? I think it very well could.
Of course, evolution doesn’t make moral judgements because it is totally amoral. Perhaps it tries to explain rape in some fashion (ie rapists spread their DNA). Is this explanation bad? Wouldn’t Christianity say that rape is a result of Original Sin? Is this explanation a justification of rape? “We’re all sinners, we were born imperfect, so it’s ok to rape.” Of course not.
Evolution just provides a different explanation. Based on this theory, then, we should execute or geld rapists to prevent them from spreading their genes (thus giving we non-criminals a better chance to breed as well). Isn’t that basically the same punishment that our Judeo-Christian ethic has given us?
This is why I see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.
106 Effeminem // Sep 20, 2006 at 3:23 am
Ping gonsarnit
107 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 6:50 am
Genghis Khan has about 16 million descendants.
108 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 8:01 am
Effeminem,
I’ve stated before, I could become an evolutionist (again) if the evidence was truly there. It could prove to be the case that they may even find a gene for rape, thievery, lying, cheating, adultery, fornication, etc., but all that would prove to me is ,as you’ve noted, that these are the physical stains of original sin in the very genes of man.
I would be all for gene therapy if it meant making mankind a more moral creature. That’s why homosexuals should be very careful in embracing any junk science which might prematurely posit that their behavior is a result of some gene(s). Wouldn’t they then be benefitted by some gene therapy while in the womb if future medical science is able to do so?
Another question, what if we all carry the “rape gene” and it just happens to be latent in some people? Or maybe it’s not latent but the moral discipline of some people allows them to resist such genetic predispositions?
Clearly there are people who would use this discovery as justification that these things are “normal” or “natural” since we carry these genetic predispositions so how can they be punished. Whereas the Christian would say, “Yes, we’ve found genetic evidence for original sin but God has told us to resist evil and to seek help from Him to overcome these things and more importantly, to find eternal salvation in the provision of His Messiah, Jesus. But when people do break the law, they must be punished despite their genetic makeup. They can resist as many of us have already resisted to the benefit of civil society.”
And you’re absolutely right, evolutionists could come to the conclusion that though rape may be an “evolutionary adaptation” what these people act out is a crime and should be punished. However, more than likely, the liberal secular will have a difficult time explaining away how these people should be punished for following their natural impulses.
Other more morally-oriented evolutionists could similarly claim these are “genetic deadends” or “genetic defects” and must be purged out the gene pool through gene therapy, but even then how can they justify punishing people who rape if they are genetically predetermined to do so? A sticky problem indeed for those who have a hyper-secular worldview
109 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 9:17 am
Though the “science” of evolution seeks to be amoral, evolutionary thought or worldview invariably makes moral conclusions - i.e. rape is a genetic characteristic and we must, a) not punish the perp, b) punish the perp anyway, c) castrate the perp, etc.
We already see the pressure from liberal atheist/humanist evolutionists forcing all of us to accept homosexual behavior as “normal” on the basis of it possibly having a genetic basis. This in itself is a moral statement on the part of the homosexual lobby, the vast majority of whom believe in evolutionary genetics.
And what if they find a “pedophile gene”? That should prove interesting to see liberal secularists twisting in the wind.
110 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 20, 2006 at 9:27 am
Good morning. Another day another another mullah
111 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 9:56 am
The “evolution” of human beings from some protoplasm by way of some primate species (besides being ludicrous) continues to be nothing more than a theory-a concept with no basis in fact.
There was a lawyer on O’Reilly yesterday who asserted that pedophilia is a disease. How sick is THAT!?!
Character defects are character defects; simple as that.
Personal responsibility for our actions, now THERE’S a concept.
112 Libby Gone // Sep 20, 2006 at 10:00 am
JL3,
AMEN BROTHER!
Anthem of my heart and mind.
113 red satellites // Sep 20, 2006 at 10:12 am
Good morning Scrapplers..!
Am I the only one who thinks Ahmadinejad has a rather Simian-like appearance? Okay…alright…I’ll just come out and say it…he may be the missing link. Someone with Adobe photoshop needs to juxtapose a chimpanzee with his picture…I’m tellin’ ya…he’s right there with them.
114 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 10:51 am
LOL
He reminds me of “The Wizard of Oz” every time-just put some wings on him.
115 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 11:04 am
Ahmadaboutjihad is a flying monkey escapee? Works for me. He’s certainly adding to the UN’s reputation as a clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous kooks.*
*Paraphrased from the Wizard of Oz. Wizard to the Tin Man.
116 Possumtrot // Sep 20, 2006 at 11:35 am
Gee, we’re almost as worked up as the Muslims about this!
There is some hard-core venting over at United Possums International.
All of this Bible quoting about submission of wives makes me wonder if I shouldn’t have smacked the second one a time or two. I don’t play by those rules, but if I had deviated, I might still have the Corvette and my life’s savings.
Waving bye-bye from Scorpion Hill…
117 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 11:37 am
Is post-Christian western civilization waking up? Another man of the cloth speaks bravely speaks out. I wonder how many hours will past before his life is threatened by the followers of “the religion of peace”?
THE former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to “violent†Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope’s “extraordinarily effective and lucid†speech.
Lord Carey said that Muslims must address “with great urgency†their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the “clash of civilisations†endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.
“We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times,†he said. “There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.â€
Lord Carey’s address came as the man who shot and wounded the last Pope wrote to Pope Benedict XVI to warn him that he was in danger. Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman who tried to murder John Paul II in 1981 and is now in prison in Turkey, urged the Pope not to visit the country in November.
“I write as one who knows about these matters very well,†Agca said. “Your life is in danger. Don’t come to Turkey — absolutely not!â€
118 mig // Sep 20, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Chavez says Bush is the Devil. Well - takes one to know one! So there. Pounding shoe on table.
119 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:00 pm
mig, if Bush was really the fascist that nutbags like Chavez, Ahmadaboutjihad and the radical American left thinks he is, the UN building would be a smoking hole in the ground after today, Chavez and Ahmadaboutjihad would be rounded up (if they weren’t already dead) and find themselves next to Noreiga in the federal maximum security prison in Colorado, every broadcast station that has spread baseless slanders about the Bush Administration since 9/11 would have its broadcast license pulled for national security reasons, rags like the NYT and WaPo would be shut down by executive order and every capital city and major metropolitan area in every Islamic regime around the world would be a glass parking lot.
Since this hasn’t happened, nor has it come anywhere close to happening, it only proves what unmitigated liars Chavez, Ahmadaboutjihad and every venom-spewing partisan leftist really are.
120 upnorthlurkin // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Doubts about the bias of the AP?! Check out Michelle Malkin here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2006/09/20/the_associated_with_terrorists_press
What?! You say testing positive for explosives isn’t proof he’s working with insurgents?! Nah!!
Anyway, they (the AP) kept this quiet for quite a while. Brings to mind the antics of Eason Jordan….only worse!
121 mig // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Have you read Allah’s Socialists in Front Page today? Sorry state of affairs.
Well Chavez has offended me, off to burn an embassy. Which way is North?
122 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Chavez’s spectacle at the UN, greeted with applause.
Poison icing on the Ahmadinejad poison cake.
I can’t believe it. This cannot go on.
I’m beyond appalled.
Here. In! Our! Faces!
I’m furious.
Livid.
123 mig // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:25 pm
So is Armitage being indicted? Just asking. I know that Scooter Libby was up for hindering an investigation or something lame. But wasn’t the left calling for the blood of the one responsible for leaking the identity of a covert CIA? (dripping sarcasm here) So if they have a public confession from Armitage, shouldn’t he be preparing for a congressional hearing. And just exactly does Colin Powell have to say? What was his role? When the leak was thought to be from the Bush Administration, even Bush was going to be held accountable. So now what. NOTHING?
Scooter Libby should sue Armitage for maligning his character, for stealing his identity or something. AND Armitage should have to pay back to the gov’t what it cost to investigate Libby. Something! Is there accountability anywhere in the Beltway?
124 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I always knew the X-Files were based on fact-and here’s proof at last!
125 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor (with Powell and all of the State Department bigwigs) knew all along that it was Armitage (Fitzgerald told him to keep quiet) and, I agree, should reimburse-that was our money they wasted.
126 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 1:57 pm
:::::Twilight Zone theme plays in background:::::
127 RedPepper // Sep 20, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Rush just announced that the Dow is soaring!
Guess us capitalists are sellin’ a ton of rope …
128 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 2:17 pm
…sellin’ a ton of rope…
You got that right. I’m still wondering when the first whiff of sanity will waft through the brain-dead drones on the left. I truly can’t tell the difference between a nutbag Islamofascist, a commie dictator and American leftists. I mean the day a bunch of third world thugs applaud a commie dictator for spewing the same talking points I embrace as a liberal, is the day I have to question my sanity.
I guess the left has a hard decision to make if there is any intellectual integrity left on that side of the aisle, do I continue wearing my tinfoil hat to protect me from the Rovian Mind Control Rays or do I buy that rope RedPepper is talking about to at least give my life some dignity.
129 mig // Sep 20, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Hmmm. Life is good. Did anyone catch Pelosi last hight on Brit Hume?
130 kajun // Sep 20, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I would have commented sooner, but I was just evicted from my computer chair and placed in the electric chair—now; if I could just learn not to accidentally bump the joystick—
131 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 6:41 pm
I’ve come to the realization that, yesterday, I inadvertantly posted a link to Ahmadinejad’s UN speech from last year.
I thought something looked funny about it but it didn’t dawn on me.
I apologize.
This is yesterday’s address (really) from the UN Website.
Chavez’s speech transcript hasn’t been posted there yet but the infuriating video is there.
Here’s President Bush from yesterday.
132 Darthmeister // Sep 20, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Ahmadaboutjihad really does look like a flying monkey. And he probably has the brain to match.
133 The Great Santini // Sep 20, 2006 at 8:55 pm
According to the Vatican, St. Muhammad’s Day will fall on October 31, Halloween. From dusk to to midnight, jihadis will rise up and kill as many infidels and Jews as they can—including auxiliary rapes and pillaging—thus augmenting the number of Roman Catholic saints to remember on All Saints Day, November 1.
Mark your Daytimersâ„¢ and Blackberrysâ„¢ appropriately for this august event.
134 onlineanalyst // Sep 20, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Lots of international forked tongues wagging on Turtle Bay. They must be singing “Lying Tines.”
Re the Halloween scenario: Will Chavez be playing the role of the Great Pumpkin? He has the facial features for it. It’s a toss up whether the ghoul Fidel or the international playboy Jacques Kerrie will be Ichabod Crane. As usual though, algore will just leave another carbon footprint.
135 Jericho // Sep 20, 2006 at 10:11 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/washington/20fence.html?ex=1159329600&en=71dde488fc136481&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
Maybe we should just build a fence all the way around these injuns too. Of course the Pope might object, but he could always beautify the tribe. After all Christ was all about defying national law, eeh?
“Does your teacher pay the temple tax?”
136 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 20, 2006 at 10:31 pm
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
“Yes, he does,” he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”~~Matthew 17:24-25
137 Godfrey // Sep 21, 2006 at 1:37 am
Hank: sorry for my silence…been immersed in a project on deadline.
re #85: there is nothing in the Bible which explicitly teaches…that women are inferior to men.
First, of course, there’s a big difference between beating a woman and merely treating her as an inferior. I certainly agree that the Bible doesn’t generally condone violence toward women (although God commands some OT Israelites to kill non-virgins of conquered enemies and “save for yourselvesâ€â€”i.e. enslave-the virgins).
But the Bible is quite explicit in a number of places regarding the social status of women. Women should learn in silence and “subjection†and should not be allowed to teach (1 Timothy 2:11-14) or to speak in church (if a woman wants to learn something, Paul says she should do so at home…by asking her husband-1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
Given the times in which the books of the Bible were written it’s not difficult to understand the authors’ assumption of female inferiority-it was after all a man’s world. And in fairness there are passages that elevate women as well, but usually within the context of their relationship to men. When you get right down to brass tacks…or more accurately silver sheckels… the Bible is very specific regarding the worth of a woman compared to the worth of a man.
Having pointed that out, it is certainly true that modern Christians aren’t particularly misogynistic while modern Muslims treat women like dogs…except that dogs get to go outside once in a while.
Effeminem re: #105: (and Hank) Of course, evolution doesn’t make moral judgments because it is totally amoral.
I think you’ve hit on a very important point. Many religious people are accustomed to thinking of things in terms of a universal “right†and “wrong†(and this is as it should be, for such considerations are exactly the province of religion and philosophy).
But science makes no moral pronouncements: it merely postulates an explanation based on available knowledge. To science, then, rape might be viewed as a “positive†evolutionary trait, since rape has the effect of passing on genes and that is an area that specifically concerns evolution. But that doesn’t mean that scientists are okay with rape; most would of course view it as a negative (if only because it passes on the wrong sort of genes).
When Hank says that science will proclaim that “rape is a genetic characteristic and we must, a) not punish the perp, b) punish the perp anyway, c) castrate the perp, etc.†he is extending the purview of science, which itself makes no such pronouncements.
In effect Hank’s argument amounts to the disavowal of a scientific finding because it might be misused or because it disagrees with a given philosophy. I think this is a bad idea; the truth is the truth and we shouldn’t avoid dealing with its moral implications.
I must disagree with you that evolution and religion don’t conflict with each other. Regardless of which we accept, religion or evolution, one renders the other unnecessary.
JL3: The “evolution†of human beings from some protoplasm by way of some primate species (besides being ludicrous) continues to be nothing more than a theory–a concept with no basis in fact.
Your other unsupported statements aside, I wonder if you haven’t misunderstood the meaning of the word “theoryâ€. In everyday parlance a theory is merely a “hunchâ€â€¦but in scientific parlance it is “a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena…capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.†(Wikipedia).
In other words a scientific theory by its very nature has a “basis in factâ€.
138 Godfrey // Sep 21, 2006 at 1:49 am
Oops. I guess it matters which way the quotation marks are pointing. Here are the correct links… I hope.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
1 Timothy 2:11-14
Shekel values
Wikipedia
139 Jericho // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:01 am
Godfrey - Take the edict to the Corinthians in context. There were several women who were causing chaos in the Corinthian church by calling out during the midst of service. To them/about them Paul spoke. If it had been teenagers who were bringing chaos the Spirit would have opportuned a different writing.
It is the same type of ignorance that leads to criticism of the head cover verse (or universal adoption of headcovering by the ‘truely’ faithful, ie. 1950’s America.) Former prostitutes of whom there were many in the Corinthian church were coming to church bald. Prostitutes in ancient Corinth were bald and wore wigs on the ‘job’ - it saved expenses on delousing. When these pros got saved they were strutting their new stuff (the old has gone the new has come) into church sans any new natural locks. This proved a distracted and hence Paul’s Spirit breathed response that women should come covered. If the Corinth Congregation had been saving them off of the 21st Century Sunset Strip he would have advised them to toss the fish-nets, minis, and 3 inch spiked heels, and stop by Goodwill or borrow some more modest clothes before stutting their new creature in Christ into worship service.
Context, context, context.
140 Jericho // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:03 am
Why are evolutionist so afraid that the forbid debate upon the validity of their theory? Is that what passes for science, Godfrey?
141 Effeminem // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:10 am
Well, religion is entirely unnecessary if it’s not true. And evolution is only somewhat useful, regardless of whether it’s true.
The Theory of Evolution seems pretty likely to be true to me, but a lot of the evidence is really bad. I use it anyway for marketing purposes. Works well.
142 Jericho // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:11 am
It amazes me how those common white moths happened to evolve into brown ones back in the days when polution darkened the bark of birch and aspen trees, but these days when there is less such pollution and the birches and aspend true colors shine through the moths have evolved back into white ones.
I guess the bird’s eye view of the whole vanishing moths theory might however be that moths that stand out don’t last long, (dem’s good eatin’) while moths that blend in survive just a bit longer. Thankfully ‘mother nature’ has a quick punctuated equilibrium trigger and those moths are adding and removing genes just as fast as we pollute or clean up our emmissions, eeh Godfrey?
143 Jericho // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:16 am
Effe - Piltdown Man - fraud
Nebraska Man - fraud
Java Man - fraud
Austro-lapithicus - extinct Gibbon
Neaderthal Man - rickets
Peking Man - malnurishment
Cro-magnon Man - Neaderthal man’s grandkids who didn’t suffer from ice-age induced Rickets.
Buy a vowel, Effe.
144 Jericho // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:18 am
James - And how much tax does your Senator’s son pay? I ain’t one.
145 mig // Sep 21, 2006 at 6:18 am
Speaking fof pollution, California is suing the big automobile companies for ‘creating a public nuisance’ by manufacturing millions of autos that produce 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
Why don’t these people just walk and ride bikes? I say, empower those californians, make bigger sidewalks.
If pollution makes acid rain, who gets the acid rain from China?
146 R.A.M. // Sep 21, 2006 at 7:25 am
A 6 year old boy was intently staring at a plaque at the front door of his church. It had names on it with American flags on either side.
The Pastor walked up the steps and the boy stoped him and asked who those people were.
“My son, those are the people that died in the service!”
The boy thought for a minute, then asked, “Was it the Sunday morning service or the evening service?”
You probably have heard this one, but I put it here for those who haven’t yet!
147 R.A.M. // Sep 21, 2006 at 7:27 am
Actually, the boy STOPPED him!
148 Godfrey // Sep 21, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Jericho: I’m not saying that the Bible’s authors didn’t have what they considered valid reasons for female “subjection”. I’m just saying that they did, in fact, approve of it. I’m sure an Islamist would argue that Mohammed had reasons that were equally valid…but neither are acceptable by today’s Western standards.
Effeminem: Well, religion is entirely unnecessary if it’s not true.
I don’t know…there are a lot of positive aspects to religion even if its supernatural claims are completely false; community, charity etc. I certainly find it unecessary in an exegetic sense, especially when it comes to natural phenomena, but as an embodiment of universal moral principles I think it has value.
The Theory of Evolution seems pretty likely to be true to me, but a lot of the evidence is really bad.
There is nearly a century and a half of evidence…I would be surprised if some of it wasn’t tainted…or even fabricated, as in the case of the Piltdown Man.
In fact the Piltdown Man is, in a way, a triumph of scientific methodology: it shows that fraudulent evidence which doesn’t fit the model is eventually found out and discarded. The Piltdown Man never fit the model, and that’s how it was eventually exposed as fraudulent. It was never the science that was fraudulent in Jericho’s examples…it was the men conducting it.
It’s interesting to note that science has such self-limiting apparatuses as this (i.e. peer review). These things make the scientific method more valid rather than less so.
Pseudo-sciences like creationism have no such safeguards.
149 Effeminem // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Whatever the benefits of Christianity, I take the capitalist view of such things: if it weren’t actually true, then something better could probably exist in its absence.
Like Nietzcheism! Or postmodernist existential pseudo-objectivism.
Actually we’d probably all be Islamic by now.
150 Godfrey // Sep 21, 2006 at 4:07 pm
How about Ismism? Something soft and mushy that everyone can sink their gums into!
151 Effeminem // Sep 21, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Or the pursuit of mindless self indulgence, msiism.
Seriously, yall ran off forsaken and hipster so fast I didn’t even get a chance to bore them! Way to fail, guys. It’s all about conversion through persistence. Don’t challenge anyone’s beliefs, no matter how stup- misguided they are. Start with core values and axioms and gradually build them up until the opponent changes his mind naturally. This way, you face no emotional resistance.
Works like a charm but it takes months.
152 Effeminem // Sep 21, 2006 at 6:09 pm
o yeah, this thread is ye olde. Bummerz.
153 syslob // Sep 21, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I being an egotistical agnostic, I no longer believe there is a me.
154 Godfrey // Sep 27, 2006 at 10:55 pm
<:-)>
155 RedPepper // Sep 27, 2006 at 11:12 pm
This is a test.:-)
You must log in to post a comment.