Think!

47 responses so far ↓

• annonymous // Oct 25, 2006 at 3:20 pm

  You really shouldn’t put all Christians under a terrorist label . Just because they have a different opinion than you doesn’t give you any right call them terrorists. The christians who compose attacks on abortion clincs are out of their mind, and should be protesting peacefully. Evangelism isn’t bullying at all. But you shouldn’t go as far as to call Christians ‘terrorists.’

• Scott // Oct 25, 2006 at 5:19 pm

  To quickly respond to “annonymous” (anonymous is spelled wrong).. I don’t think the author of this blog called all Christians terrorists. I believe he was referring very specifically to those Christians who impose their beliefs onto others. I think that if you were to put your passion for your religion aside and look more analytically at this blog you might be able to view it objectively and see some value. I truly feel that anyone who takes fault with the basic spirit of this blog is any number of things including, delusional, ignorant, obsessive, blind, dumb, bigoted… and on and on and on. I do not say this to offend but rather to open eyes. C’mon people.. what century are we living in?? for that matter.. what decade?? If the social elements of our culture advanced half as quickly as technology did, we would be much more at peace.

  Kudos to this blog. Kudos to its writer. I could not have said any of it better myself. I think this is a major dilemma in our culture that needs to not just be address but attacked and fixed. Separation of church and state is an illusion that perhaps at one point in our history has been lived out but not in my lifetime. It is essential to a true Democracy, which we don’t have. It is essential to the avoidance of a totalitarian society, which is questionable whether or not we have. I call for an extreme analysis of the way we govern and a fumigation of religious practices from our government.

  Ps: I LOVE the use of the word ‘terrorist’ in this blog. I hope that other people will catch on to this expanded definition and use it more readily to describe extremists of all walks of life.. not just Muslim and/or people of Middle Eastern descent. I know I will.

• Antonio // Oct 26, 2006 at 5:03 am

  I certainly did not call all Christians terrorists, and if you look closely, I never said that I was not a Christian. The fact that I said, “I am pretty sure that I learned in Sunday school….” leaves this open for interpretation.

  My religious beliefs, however, are irrelevant. As I explained we have grown accustomed to referring to “Islamic terrorists” as those that are Muslim but will resort to violence and other extreme means to impose on others what they think their view of the world should be. The point here is that we shouldn’t be afraid to call people of other religions who do the same thing Christian, Jewish, or Hindu terrorists whatever the case may be. Maybe Christians did not blow up the World Trade Center, but some of them are doing a pretty good job terrorizing the general populace nonetheless.

• Brandon // Oct 27, 2006 at 5:30 am

  Nobody, including Christians, knows exactly when life begins. In a court of law there is a little thing known as “reasonable doubt”. We all know what this is. I say, lets not sentence a baby to death due to the fact there is insufficient evidence to be certain the baby is alive or not. On a side note, just because a Christian has an abortion, commits murder, or any other act someone may consider a “big sin”, which society has labeled, not the Bible, doesn’t mean they are going to hell. Man will sin, God will forgive.

• Antonio // Oct 27, 2006 at 6:45 am

  Thanks for your commen. While I did not really intend for this entry to become a debate about abortion, I think I should respond. I think that your logic here goes against what was the heart of the argument in the blog. By saying that there is “reasonable doubt” and that we shouldn’t sentence the baby to death, it is clear that you would view the fetus as a child, but would also advocate “forcing” this view on everyone else. If there is doubt, then everyone should be able to make their own judgement. By outlawing abortion, one is no longer able to make his own decisions because they have already been made for him. That is the crux of the problem. If you think that life begins at conception, you should be entitled to think that. Those who disagree should be entitled to think that as well. Neither should be able to force his views. It is not as if people that support the right to choose are necessarily advocating “murder,” but rather respecting the idea that man is endowed with the right to make his own decisions. If you don’t believe in abortions, don’t have one.

  Maybe having an abortion is an immoral decision, but can you really say that you have taken the moral highroad when someone else is actually the one that made the decision for you?

• Zach // Oct 28, 2006 at 6:11 pm

  Right, how is it any different for Christians to scare networks broadcasting madonna than it is for Muslims to scare Europe out of putting on a Mozart opera where they chop off Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus’s head?

• Paul // Nov 2, 2006 at 2:52 pm

  Wow, this article is many things, none of them insightful. You are conveying severely biased opinions and stating “false facts”(also called misinformation), making exclamatory claims, and using contradictory logic.
  First, to address your statements about Madonna. It took Mel Gibson getting drunk enough to call a female police officer, “sugar tits”, before he said something disparaging about someone else’s religion, but Madonna has publicly, in interviews, insulted and ridiculed religions like Christianity and Judaism, but expressed tolerance for other religions. Why is that? Why is it that she is not on the cover of magazines being publicly humiliated when what she has done sober and on purpose, is much more offensive than what Mel did, inebriated and accidently. Why be tolerant of one religion and not another? Why care when one person may possibly hate, and not care when another does hate? Why do you want her to have the right to express intolerant views on national television just because she’s a celebrity and she wants to? I’m sure she has her own website and a blog for that kind of thing? I am a Christian and I can talk one on one with a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a pagan, and I have and I don’t need to insult the religion just to promote or defend mine. I respect other people’s beliefs even if I know they’re wrong. Madonna can state her opinions publicly, but who are you to tell NBC what they will allow her to say on their broadcasting station when they are just as responsible for Madonna’s content as Madonna. Christianity has been getting a lot of flack from a lot of different directions and most of it stems from intolerance of the religion and IT DOES MAKE CHRISTIANS FEEL OPPRESSED. Why is the country bending over backwards to understand the customs of a religion like Islam that is growing here and that they don’t fully understand and then spitting on the long-held beliefs of Christians, a religion that has been prevalent since the founding of our country.

  In addition, I don’t know who gave the entire political left the authority to decide that free speech included all actions even those of hate and intolerance, but I am really sure that free speech was never intended to mean more than the dictionary definition of speaking. I don’t see a reason to allow public burnings of American flags. While trying to express malcontent of our current government, they are really showing a lack of respect for those that have died and are dying even now as you read this to protect the freedoms they and you now enjoy. It’s a mixed message and most of the politicians don’t care. It’s the veterans and the widows of veterans that it bothers the most. Trust me, I know a few.

  Anyway, the point is that NBC’s decision to not show Madonna publicly mocking Christianity while she puts Kabbalah on a pedestal is laudable. A standing in our seats ovation should be deserved, provided they would’ve done the right thing anyway. They have a right to censor their own programming. No one has a problem when they choose to not promote Christianity in any real capacity, but you are condemning them for choosing to also not mock and degrade Christianity. You are supporting intolerance and not simply free speech. There is indeed free speech, but there are consequences for everything we say. Every thing said has the potential to cause change or affect others around us, even when we think no one is listening. You telling Christians that it is not reasonable to inform a company of their intent to boycott or spread influence by any legal means whatsoever if they feel extremely offended of what they believe will be shown on the air is no better than if I told people who would picket outside the White House against the Iraq War that they are traitors to their country for telling the government how to run itself. Your solution ends with countless thousands offended, while NBC offers a meaningless corporate apology. I don’t like your solution and many others would agree.
  Next, on abortion, I don’t understand how destroying something that at the time of destruction is a breathing, eating, drinking, moving, thinking, growing being that will become a human baby can possibly be considered not living and therefore disposable.

  That idea in itself is appalling. Abortion itself teaches society that irresponsibility and recklessness have quick fixes. It puts the personal preference and apathetic whims of an adult as weighing more than the preservation of human life. Don’t like me calling it that? Wouldn’t getting an abortion inhibit the preservation of a future human life and wouldn’t avoiding the abortion route preserve that fetus to have the chance of a human life. It’s murder, plain and simple. Out of sight, out of mind in the first degree. What about that fetus? It didn’t have a choice. It reminds me of the apathy seen in the Holocaust. The Nazis didn’t see them as people, so they didn’t care. You don’t see a growing fetus as a person so you don’t care.

  Moving on, you make the comment, “The idea of the first amendment is that the government should not prefer one religion over another and that the state should not impose any religion.” Seemingly you made this comment to try to explain why Madonna should be allowed to publicly, on television, by NBC to voice intolerant opinions and show her so-called “actions of free speech” again just because she wanted to. I had to read that part three times. You tried to make an argument for Madonna by calling NBC the government and attesting for her right to any free speech that she desires on a station that she has no right or authority to control the content including what they decide to censor for fair and legal reasons.

  You waxed illogic yet again with your statement about abortion and other controversial arguments, “Their free practice of religion ends, however, when they attempt to thwart the government and impose that religion on me.” Hmm, let’s think. The Bible says murder and stealing are wrong. So does our code of laws and many others and they are not necessarily there because of the influence of the Bible.

  In addition, if we look at having or not having the right to abort, you say that it stems only from religion. Is that because it’s a religious belief or is it just that many religious people, among others,including atheists, believe it is an undeniable principle of ethics that cannot be ignored. Brandon(above) basically stated that the Bible doesn’t contain the word abortion and that it is society that has a problem with this and that is very true. I was raised on principles of compassion and love, and caring because my parents tried to love me and others the way Jesus said he loves us and then made the ultimate sacrifice for us so long ago. I am not trying to impose but merely state my beliefs to show that principles of compassion and caring are why I can tackle a complicated, controversial issue like abortion and have compassion on life being destroyed and why I think it is unfair that decades ago one man in a black robe decided that millions of unborn babies existing at that time and all of them since were not really living human beings and therefore had no rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I bet some of them would’ve wanted it though.

  Here’s my last point on abortion. It is not Christians trying to force their religious beliefs into legislative law. It’s Christians and countless others of other religions or even no religious affiliation whatsoever who don’t want what they perceive to be innocent lives to be thrown away as simply and as carefreely as defective parts on an automotive company’s conveyor belt.

  It is very presumptuous of you and all who would agree that it is simply because of faith that we would demonstrate love and pity on what we believe are people with the same rights and privileges as the people who endorse their destruction.

  Next, I can’t condone your use ofthe idea that if I commit this sin or that sin, then I will go directly to hell. That demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Bible’s teachings on salvation and forgiveness of sins. The abortion controversy stems not from beliefs about salvation or forgiveness of sins, but from people’s perception of what a living human being is and a compassion for unborn babies that many would give blood to as easily, and sometimes more easily than an adult and that many consider to be people with the same inalienable rights as you or I.

  Not a single unbiased individual, religious or not, could agree with lumping boycotts and what you call “evangelical bullying” in with abortion clinic bombings. It’s insulting to try to use a false and exclamatory statement like that to prove a poorly thought out point. Most of the people who are pro-life also are extremely appalled at abortion clinic bombings. The vandalism, and loss of human life or even the potential of loss of human life just because of desires to use actions for free speech can not be condoned even if their motives were geared towards the same cause as mine or that of other pro-life defenders. You’ll notice I’m slinging ideas in your direction and not bullets.

  Also, I must address Zach’s statement.”Right, how is it any different for Christians to scare networks broadcasting madonna than it is for Muslims to scare Europe out of putting on a Mozart opera where they chop off Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus’s head?”
  Here’s a clue. Operas and plays are ticketed events that people go to, as are concerts. You can choose to attend or not to attend. I’m sure that some radical Muslims would like to silence free speech of any kind that offends them, but they just can’t. It won’t work without tyrannical leadership of the whole world by radical muslims with people in place to enforce the fear and respect of their religion, their god and the man who they name a prophet. It is incidentally exactly what radical Muslims(not all Muslims) would like to do. Watch Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West and watch something that many who would downplay the hate of radical Islam would like to keep people from watching. It shows many real telecasts and taped segments of meetings about how much radical Islam does hate us for being who we are and not just because of the Iraq War. It delves into the psychological reasoning behind the hate and shows how they feel and how they influence and control many around them much like the Nazi regime. In other words, it shows real terrorists and their supporters.

  Anyway, radical Islam would like to keep that previously mentioned opera from beeing seen or heard in any country, not simply to keep the potentially offensive scene from being on broadcasted television, which would prevention the ease of scenarios such as a Muslim family sitting in a hotel in that city, turning on a television, and seeing a figure who, to them, is extremely significant and beloved and seeing that man beheaded in front of them for the purpose of free speech and entertainment. But they didn’t just try to stop a broadcast, and they didn’t boycott, picket, or bully.

  Peer pressure is free speech, whether from an individual or a group, and can be utilized effectively for a good cause in the right instance.

  Radical Muslims use terror tactics, which puts them in a whole different category than people who try to influence or even pressure others decisions. Terrorism and terror tactics are more than just psychological operations designed to change other’s minds or to wake people up to an idea. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or threats of violence, which would include Sep. 11 attacks, embassy bombings, theatre bombings, civilian kidnappings, and murders at the hands of Radical Muslims, and, yes, abortion clinic bombings by tiny, isolated groups of anti-abortion activist criminals but not any of the other methods of social influence you deviously and crudely slopped into a big mash and called terrorism just to spread your opinion of how our laws should be and so you can freely ridicule anyone who thinks differently. If any kind of threat or warning from anyone of anything other than violence were called terrorism as well, that would mean that probation officers advising someone of what will happen if they commit any crime within the next six months, or a security guard warning a robber to put down his gun or he will be shot, or a mother telling her son to stop biting his sister or he will be punished would all have to be regarded as terrorists. The lack of misunderstanding and the incorrect use of the words terrorism and terrorist are sad, pathetic tools to encourage a liberal political bias and are not good points of debate since they are incorrect in meaning and show an astounding lack of integrity, character and knowledge of commonly used words. I hope you realize what you have said.

  I am going to follow your line of logic so others can see what kind of man you really are. You have said that if Christians commit these things that have drawn your deep seated unhappiness, then they are terrorists. Which would mean if any religous person, from any religion, would do these things then they are terrorists.

  Even if you never admit it, I hope you realize, that you have effectively called all people that attempt to influence the world they live in with the ethical principles which they believe in because of their religion and culture(since we established that parts of society and not the Bible directly have exhibited a contempt for abortion) are indeed, according to you, TERRORISTS.

  Most of us would shy away from being labeled as hateful, intolerant, and most especially as terrorists. We, as a nation, all suffered loss at the hands of terrorists on Sep 11, 2001. I didn’t know anyone in those buildings, but I cried nonetheless. I felt deep, and horrible loss.

  Terrorist was given new meaning to my generation that day and the spread of your misuse not only makes the real terrorists seem less significant, and not only is intolerant and offensive to those who live in the same country (Christians) who are free to publicly express their discontent at other people, Madonna and even you, for abusing the right to free speech, but your message also HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE FEAR in Christians, and other religious groups and all people in general of being labeled as terrorists just for expressing their right of free speech and right to petition the government, or in this case, NBC. You have attempted to prove your opinions by inciting fear in one of the most subtle, effective ways possible, hypocrisy veiled by a thick, almost nontransparent wall of fallacious(false) logic.

  By calling others something terrible, even though they aren’t just to change Christians way of thinking and other’s way of thinking about said Christians, you have incited fear in Christians that they should be labeled as terrorists and so forth hated, mocked, and hurt and you have incited fear in others in making them think that Christians pose harm to the rest of the nation by making others think that Christians have this deep-seated desire to take away their rights, which is not true. They are simply people who stand up for what they believe in, even when people like you try to tear them down and turn society against them.

  Your abuse of free speech in “giving the gift of fear” in others would mean that you, under your own definition of the word, are a TERRORIST. I don’t believe that you are a terrorist. I don’t believe that I’m a terrorist either. Terrorists are members of an organized, united cause to further their goals by violence or threats of violence. Neither you or I do that so neither of us are terrorists. However, what you are, sir, is intolerant!

• Antonio // Nov 3, 2006 at 7:06 am

  Sir, please explain to us how the fact that thousands of people might be offended is a rational justification for anything? Someone is offended by something everyday. People feel oppressed everyday. Why should Christians be free from being offended and feeling oppressed when no one else is?

  Secondly, if you say don’t buy a ticket to the opera that offends you, I say, change the channel if you see something on television that you don’t like. Why should you be able to stop me from seeing it?

  Thirdly, my dictionary defines terrorism as: 1. the use of violence OR threats to intimidate or coerce, ESPECIALLY for political purposes. If anyone is guilty of fallacious logic here, it would be you. It would take some fascinating linguistic acrobatics to get me to believe a mother disciplining her child or a police office trying to stop a crime is doing so for political purposes.

  As far as the abortion controversy goes. I again point to the statement that many of those most fervently against abortion support the death penalty, and are also against the expansion of social programs that may help the poor, young, unwed mothers if they did have the babies. Explain to me how that is ethical. The life of someone who hasn’t yet breathed on his own is somehow more important than someone who has lived for many years simply because the latter committed a crime? It’s ethical to bring a baby in the world that is going to end up on the streets or starving to death because his mother can’t take care of him? I don’t have the answers, but clearly you do, so please share.

  Lastly, the most telling part of YOUR intolerance is the line «I respect other people’s beliefs even if I know they’re wrong.» Hate to break it to you, but much like there is no Santa Claus, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Is killing people wrong? Clearly not, when we execute people and are at war everyday. Is killing people right? Obviously not, that’s why murder is illegal. Give me a break. You are entitled to your beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Tolerance means allowing other people to have theirs. Since the line between right and wrong is completely arbitrary, please explain to me why it should be drawn much closer to what you call the “political right” than it does to the “political left”? To borrow from your words again, I don’t like your solution, and neither do lots of other people.

• Paul // Nov 3, 2006 at 4:09 pm

  “Sir, please explain to us how the fact that thousands of people might be offended is a rational justification for anything?” That was your request and that is easy. No one should have to feel oppressed. When you offend someone, you are hurting them. If someone is purposely hurting a group of people for no good reason, why would you defend it? If you tell me something that is true, like people dying in the holocaust or Christians being tortured in the Spanish Inquisition, then I may be offended by it. In both cases, I am offended by the torturing and killing of innocent people. I can accept that because I don’t want to be blind to what is true. If you insult someone else’s religion for no reason other than to insult someone else’s religion, then why show that on TV? It is pointless to do so. That is the point of television censors. We don’t need to glorify a celebrity because of singing ability and then foolishly believe that there is any reason whatsoever to see what her religious or political beliefs are. If she sings well, show her singing. If she acts well, show her acting, but there is no reason whatsoever to show her making a mockery of a religion by making a religious statement during her concert just because we have free speech. That’s just not a good enough reason to show it on TV. There are people all across our nation that appreciate censorship of TV even if they don’t like censorship in all forms. You can choose to buy a movie or not buy a movie or choose to go to a concert or not go to a concert, but if you’re a single parent and you have to work two jobs and you have to find a babysitter, you don’t get to choose what channel your impressionable four year old is watching.
  The people that buy into the ideas of “We’ll they’re going to learn about it sooner or later” or “They’ll turn out all right. It’s all good. Let them watch whatever” in regards to kids watching television don’t realize that it’s often better to shelter children from some things until
  they are mature enough to deal with them. Whether you agree with that or not, doesn’t mean that you should have the right to decide that for my children. I just watched Talladega Nights and although I did think it was a fairly funny movie, I was offended by some of it. However, I let things like that roll off my back because I can censor myself and am not easily offended. However, I have friends that do get offended, and I would tell them I thought it was somewhat funny, but also warn them that they might be offended if they saw that movie. It’s their choice from there. I really hope this movie never makes it on TV, however. I don’t need a celebrity to tell me how to run my life and no one else does either. I wouldn’t appreciate Madonna burning a Koran on national TV to make a religious statement anymore than I would a Bible. Both would offend me. Celebrities in this day and age are looked at as something they’re not, which is anything more than employees of an entertainment industry. We as a people need to stop glorifying them like we do.
  If you want to spread a political or religious message that will offend a large group of people and you have no reason or authority to spread that kind of message, for instance some woman who was discovered for singing talent, then you can do that in other ways and through other mediums.

  We don’t need intense gore, hardcore porn, intolerance and probably a lot of things that are already allowed on TV to be on TV. Everybody lauds desensitization, but being desensitized is often, not always, a bad thing. It can cause issues like Abu Ghraib. Not enough people were sickened by doing bad things to other people. People let it happen to other people. Period. You wouldn’t show the most graphic events from that on national TV, would you? I would hope not. Oh, and why wouldn’t you do that? It would offend people.

  Also, your definition of terrorism mentioned “ESPECIALLY for political purposes”. Yet your argument was about a religious purpose which mostly is about common decency. It wasn’t a political purpose. People who try to cause influence through boycotts and people who try to cause influence by exploding buildings and killing people are very different people. That is my point. I was misusing the word terrorist when talking about probation officers and mothers because I was pointing out that those people aren’t terrorists and neither are Christians. When the definition talks about threats, it isn’t talking about any threat. We’ve all threatened someone with an ultimatum, but we’re not all terrorists just because we use some kind of threat. The kind of threat that terrorism uses is a threat of violence or physical harm. Boycotts, pickets, and utilizing free speech are legal tools of the public to make their voice heard. You’re standing up against constitutional rights and against free speech of people who are being offended, and advocating free speech of someone who is offensive and intolerant, on national TV, no less. To freely express opinion is talked about in the constitution, but TV’s weren’t because they weren’t around back then. We, as a nation, have to decide what is acceptable to be on a medium such as TV and what is not. That’s why we have the FCC.

  To explain myself further on the abortion issue, many people who don’t agree with abortion do agree with the death penalty. Mostly, because they don’t believe that someone who has commited murder should be allowed the chance to do that ever again. The problem is that cold blooded murderers go to prison for life but get out for good behavior. If I was in a box, I’d be good til I got out too. It’s incentive. it doesn’t mean they won’t kill again. The people who agree with the death penalty often just don’t want those people to ever, ever have the chance to kill again. Many of those supporters have had to live with the terror and the pain that comes with losing someone you love to a murderer. It’s devastating to people and often to whole families. I can see the side of the family wanting someone dead who killed their son or their mom much sooner than I can see the side of someone who would agree with letting a murderer out of prison at 30 years for good behavior. You’re spitting on people who want to preserve life, whether it be unborn babies or a murderer’s future potential victims. I can see not wanting to have a death penalty also, but I can’t see condemning the people who support it either. If one person murders another, why do they deserve to live any longer? I wouldn’t waste your time answering that, because I have never found anyone that can come up with a reasonable answer and you’re not a very convincing person. They really don’t deserve a second chance, but then again, if I wanted to sentence a worse punishemntthen death, then I’d rather see them live out their life in prison. Many prisoners would find 50-60 years in prison more cruel than a death penalty, but many don’t. Some criminals would rather die than rot in prison. That’s why states have to decide, because it’s a difficult issue. They should be in a real prison too, not the country club places we have today with cable TV and so on. Prison used to be three hots and a cot. That’s still all it should be plus the exercise yard. I can agree with that. Also, I’m not really sure who you’re talking about in regards to your comments about people against abortion “are also against the expansion of social programs that may help the poor, young, unwed mothers if they did have the babies.” I’ve never met anybody that had this kind of viewpoint and I think you may be talking politicians, instead of voters, the real people. Also, I don’t even know what social programs you’re referring to. You’re a little vague there.

  Oh, by the way, Mr. Assumption, when I said that I respect other people’s beliefs even if I know they’re wrong, I am talking about things like religious beliefs of religions that were created in the last ten years and things of that nature. If you watch someone invent a religion, how can you buy into it? That makes no sense. I know that a person who just starts believing in something that somebody just invented, has to be wrong. I still respect their beliefs. That’s not intolerant. It’s watching out for any Tom, Dick, or Harry that starts a religious movement. Just because I don’t respect them for deciding to believe that, doesn’t mean that I don’t respect their right to believe it. I DO RESPECT THEIR RIGHT TO BELIEVE IT. I don’t have to respect other’s choices, but I do have to respect their rights. See the difference?
  I hope so.

  Just because the mother has the baby, doesn’t mean it will live out on the streets. It’s not illegal to put it up for adoption. It sounds like you’re spitting on adopted kids. Some of my friends were adopted and I’m glad they’re in the world and I’m glad that they get to experience life. Not everybody who has a hard life, hates life. Not eveyone’s measure of success is how easy their life is. We’re supposed to grow up out of that idea. Some of the people who have risen to greath wealth or great success in any medium started with having nothing. Whether their are abortions or not, their are still people living on the streets. Abortions are legal in most states and their are still people living in the streets. I don’t want anybody growing up on the streets anymore than you do, but I still can’t condone abortion. I can’t condone murder of an innocent just because you don’t think they’ll make it anywhere. That’s a big assumption to make just to prove your point. Don’t you think a more aggressive search to find more jobs in the country would be better than deciding to end a life?

  Also, your last paragraph in your response shows a complete lack of common sense. If someone is trying to kill you with a gun, and you have a gun, do you shoot him? Is it wrong to defend yourself? No, it is not wrong to defend yourself. Also, if someone was trying to kill others, would you try to stop him? Would you kill him to preserve other’s lives, if you had no other choice? Taking someone’s life in self defense or for the preservation of other’s lives is not the same as cold blooded murder. People who support the death penalty feel that preservation of lives in the future can only be ensured by taking the life of someone who has already murdered a human being. If no one murdered, then no one would want murderers dead, since their wouldn’t be any. Try throwing stones at the murderer before the person who wants to see what he believes to be justice carried out. Life in prison only works well if the murderers in a nation are put in prisons that they can’t escape from. We don’t necessarily have that kind of security at all prisons. Some people, not me, would look at you as a person who doesn’t care whether murderers roam free or not. I know that’s not the case, but your time and efforts would be better served at convincing the government to fund prisons that are more secure so that the death penalty becomes all but unnecessary everywhere. Maybe they could use the money they spend on cable TV for inmates to pay for the higher security. Maybe, maybe.
  Also, soldiers don’t fight in wars because they want to. They fight in wars because they feel they have to. Usually, the men that they have pledged to obey the instructions of feel it is necessary to preserve life. So they obey, and can only hope that the people at the top are making the right decisions. War is ugly, costly, and difficult, but it is sometimes necessary and sometimes it’s not and wars are fought anyways.
  But that still doesn’t mean that abortions are right, just because the government allows a war that you don’t believe in or because you don’t agree with the death penalty.

  You said “that the life of someone who hasn’t yet breathed on his own is somehow more important than someone who has lived for many years simply because the latter committed a crime?” to try and prove a point. First of all, the fetus is growing and thinking, even if he isn’t breathing.
  Oh, also, I can admit when I’m wrong. In my first response I said that a fetus is a breathing, eating, drinking, moving, thinking, growing being. That was a typo and I can’t go back and edit it, so I’ll just admit my mistake. However it is an eating, drinking, moving, thinking, growing human being, which is why breathing shouldn’t be the determination, because it doesn’t need to breath yet. Just because it doesn’t to breathe yet, doesn’t make him or her any less alive. If the mother died, then he or she would cease to exist. He or she would die. His mother is keeping the fetus alive. Secondly, you’re making it sound like abortion and the death penalty are the same issue. First off, there is right and wrong; killing people, unfortunately, is sometimes necessary; and murder is killing someone but sometimes killing isn’t murder, like in self-defense. The preservation of life of innocent people is more important than the preservation of life of murderers, but that doesn’t mean that people who don’t approve of abortion are incapable of disagreeing with the death penalty. I’m pretty sure you can’t lump all the the people in the nation, much less South Dakota or Christians in general as wanting a ban on abortions and wanting the death penalty. You can’t just throw things together and deceitfully call it truth. Just because you can’t comprehend the hard, unforgiving truth that sometimes you have to kill others to keep them from commiting cold blooded murder of innocents doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It just means that you don’t get it. That’s not an opinion. Many different people could give you many examples of how someone had to be killed to preserve life. Think hostage situations. Are you going to kill a guy who takes hostages and threatens to kill them. If worst comes to worst, then yes. Sometimes doing the right thing has good and bad consequences. Just because the person who threatened to kill had to die so that the life of the hostages were preserved, doesn’t mean that the cop who shot him is a murderer. It means he’s a hero. He did what must be done. It takes a strong person to be able to kill someone to save others when that person really desires to never, ever have to kill anyone. I don’t want to ever have to kill anyone, but if someone was trying to kill you and I had the means to stop him, I would do it, whether you would do the same for me or not.

  Oh, by the way, when I, in only one paragraph, for only one topic mentioned the words, political left, I wasn’t meaning that their aren’t bad Republicans or good Democrats, because their are. What I meant was that some of the liberal interpretations of some parts of the constitution make me feel uneasy about the American government today. I don’t see right and wrong, based solely on left and right, red and blue, or elphant and donkey. I’m not quite that shallow.

  You stated that”You are entitled to your beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Tolerance means allowing other people to have theirs.”, but you also stated that, “there is no such thing as right and wrong” and then you explained why you think that. So why do you say right and wrong don’t exist and then talk about them like they do exist. That seems contradictory to me.
  Anyway, just because I am tolerant of people’s beliefs, does not mean that I have to tolerate being oppressed. If you want to mock Christianity, if you want to spread intolerance, come to my front door and do it. Write it in a book. Don’t perform some mocking display of other people’s religions on national TV and then try to throw up the free speech flag to say I can hurt whoever I want to hurt without consequence. There are always consequences for our actions and words. Just because Madonna wants to hurt people, call it free speech, and be apathetic doesn’t mean that NBC or anyone else has a responsiblity to let her do it for everyone to see. I, for one, would like to see some more good in the world and less bad. Less pain, hurt, intolerance and oppression.

  Tolerance does mean letting other people have their beliefs, but your entire article is geared towards bashing other people for having different beliefs. Oh and by the way, Madonna wasn’t making a statement about her religion. She belongs to Kabbalah(Jewish mysticism), a religion associated with some of the beliefs of Judaism, and has for years, she is devoted to her Kabbalah Centre, has donated millions to Kabbalah centres around the world, and has reportedly,by the media, taken the Jewish name Esther in private life and will not play on Friday nights for religious reasons.

  Madonna appearing on a cross is an attempt to mock Christianity, which she has already insulted in public interviews, and is obviously not a part of. Your whole argument about free speech doesn’t have anything to do with expression of religion, but expression of hate and intolerance of someone else’s religion and that really doesn’t need to be on TV at all.

  “Why should Christians be free from being offended and feeling oppressed when no one else is?”, you ask? Easy answer. As human beings, we should all be working towards a society that people feel continuously less and less oppressed. No one should feel oppressed. Not Christians, not Muslims, not Jews, and not adherents of Kabbalah or any other religion, unless that religion, such as the one that ended with the Waco suicides, is harmful. It is painfully obvious that you overinflate and exaggerate things, are extremely biased, and are part of the problem of intolerance, and not part of the solution.

  You should be very afraid of calling people terrorists when that is not what they are. Causing influence, causing change is not the same as causing terror. Calling people terrorists when they are not is hurtful and unwarranted. The point is that this little opinion of yours is a very dangerous and slanderous one indeed. Calling people terrorists causes those people to be hated by someone reading your words out there, and if you cause someone to be hated, then you may never be able to undo that. I hope that makes you very, very afraid of the damage that you can do with your words and actions, whether legal or illegal. The world will be no worse for the wear, if Madonna doesn’t get to mock Christianity on national TV, but it will be worse if you continue to incite hate.

• Scott // Nov 3, 2006 at 5:26 pm

  I am petrified that people like Paul go to such lengths to defend a logic that so clearly runs in circles and draws absolutely no productive conclusions other than defense of his own beliefs. He has every right to have his beliefs and argue his points but his logic is what drives the ill thinking people of our world. I truly believe it is what the foundation of bigotry is established upon:

  This to me is evidence of our uphill battle as humans to come to terms with self defeating behaviors. The key in my mind is the difference between being an “open minded” individual and a “closed minded” individual. I’ll let you choose which is which. There is a HUGE difference between analysis with an agenda and analysis without.

• Paul // Nov 6, 2006 at 11:40 am

  Let me ask you a question? Are you a politician, Scott? You are stating that my logic runs in circles and draws absolutely no productive conclusions other than defense of my own beliefs. You state that my logic is what the foundation of bigotry is established upon.

  This is what as known as a negative spin from the opposite camp. Yes, my logic does run in circles, if by that, you mean keeps backing itself up with facts again and again. Also, when you say that my logic draws absolutely no productive conclusions other than my own beliefs, I know this is false. Often, my analyses prove me wrong, but in these cases, analytic logic proved the poster of this article wrong.

  See, even if you knew I was right, but didn’t want to admit it, you would say something along the lines of all of his findings point to the conclusions which he believes are true. Wait, that’s pretty much what you did and that pretty much proves none of it wrong. Anyone could say what you have said about practically anyone if they wanted too. You make no valid point in the argument and you try to put a negative spin on the fact that hard facts and commonly known information back up most all of what I have said. Scant little of it are merely opinion and “my” logic.

  The problem with people like you, is that you like to label people, just like politicians do. Let’s make two camps, open-minded and closed-minded, us and them, and turn the world’s eyes against them. It’s common political warfare.

  The problem with labels are that they never take into account other information, such as the fact that it wouldn’t do a lick a good to be open or closed minded if you’re ignorant. The people who died in the Waco suicides were very open minded.

  Besides, the people who claim to be open-minded are the most closed-minded people I know. People like you seem to think that people who are sure of what they believe in, never take the time to question their beliefs. But many of us do. I question my beliefs everyday. Probably more often than you do. Problem is what I believe just keeps making sense.

  By the way, blogs and debates are all about agendas: making your voice heard. It’s part of free speech. In a blog, someone starts an idea and all of the posters afterwards agree or disagree with the original poster’s ideas or agree or disagree with the ideas of posters after him/her. All of these are agendas. Posting something like, ‘I like cheese’, in an article about the future of genetics would be analysis of something without an agenda, because it has no point, except to point out that he or she likes cheese. If you have any point to prove whatsoever, then you have an agenda. The fact that you didn’t realize that you, yourself, had an agenda simply shows your ignorance.

  My logic is not the foundation of bigotry. Ignorance, and therefore fear, of the unknown is the foundation of bigotry.

  Everybody knows that!

• Scott // Nov 6, 2006 at 1:19 pm

  I challenge you Paul, to go back and re-read my response to your blog entry and follow the logic that you defend, that is:

  “I question my beliefs everyday. Probably more often than you do. Problem is what I believe just keeps making sense.”

  This sentence is what is referred to as an oxymoron. If you truly were to question yourself, you would constantly be reformatting your conclusions and belief systems, which would render that last sentence null and void.

  The difference between what I have to say and what you have to say within this blog is that your words seem to come from an extremely antagonistic place. This is what scares me. You come across very passionate about what you believe, so much so that you are willing to dismiss any validity that another person’s argument might have.

  Passion is a beautiful and powerful thing. Without flexibility however passion manifests itself in dangerous ways.

  I challenge you to take in what I have to say without feeling like you have to defend yourself. I don’t think anything I have said invalidates your points, it simply challenges your delivery and the way you receive information.

• Paul // Nov 6, 2006 at 3:25 pm

  No sir, it is not an oxymoron. Just because I must reevaluate the way I look at many different areas of my life, doesn’t mean that every single fact, every single shred of evidence changes over time. Some things never change, and some things can’t help but change. If I said that tomorrow I will still be breathing oxygen, and you said that I was going to breathing argon or pancakes, I will give that all the serious thought it deserves, all of two seconds, unless you have something to back up your wild claims, then I will review your claims a little more seriously.

  The point is that I am not closed-minded just because you say something without any evidence and then I disagree with you based on evidence that I know full well or if you present evidence that I have already seen proven to be false. That’s called reasoning. Not every single one of my beliefs has to change over time to be true. If a belief is true, then it can never change, without outside stimuli. Otherwise it isn’t true. When I speak of outside stimuli, I’m talking of the presence of new facts, such as if one of us died, then that person would no longer be breathing oxygen. Without going into semantics, if something is proven to be false, then it was likely never true to begin with.

  We believed, based on all the evidence we had, that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe. We found that to be false. We had to accept that what we believed wasn’t true. The greatest minds of that time, had to be made humble based on new evidence. All of us, have to do this all the time. However, I guarantee you that you and I will both be breathing oxygen tomorrow, if we are breathing, that is.

  For you to suggest that what I said is an oxymoron is for you to say that nothing can ever be considered truth. Do you trust anything to be definitely true unless proven otherwise? Or are you just waiting to see if everything is proven false? Expecting everything that you don’t agree with to be proven false is called being closed-minded.

  Also, I don’t dismiss any “validity” that another person’s argument has. I didn’t dismiss everything the poster had to say. Just what I knew wasn’t true. Some of his “facts” were accurate and some were not and he derived points partially based on false information. That means that his points were false because they were based on false information. That doesn’t mean that everything he said was wrong. Only what rationality and factual information tell me are inaccurate did I refute as being inaccurate.

  You are so vague and uninformative about what you really mean. “Without flexibility, passion manifests itself in dangerous ways.” Flexibility of what? Flexibility of what I believe or flexibility of what I have found to be true? I will change what I believe if rational evidence proves me wrong, but why would I change what I know to be true when there is no evidence against it?

  I, for one, absolutely despise misinformation, because for every little piece of misinformation, there are a hundred people like you, that will defend that misinformation to the death, call me closed-minded for not openly accepting it’s possibility when I already know it’s not true, and then close their mind to the fact that what they so fervently believe could be misinformation.

  So, in the category of being extremely antagonistic, yes, I am extremely antagonistic, and rightfully so, about a culture that continually produces more and more misinformation. It’s very, very frustrating. Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but it would be nice if there were more people out there that weren’t apathetic of the rest of the world around them and weren’t basing all their opinions on what has been proven untrue already.

  You’re right about one thing, though. What you said doesn’t invalidate my points. It just points out that you argue for your opinions and that I argue for my mine and that I have a more fervent passion for the truth. It doesn’t really matter what I said or how I said it, you would’ve reacted the same way because what I said invalidated what you said and you don’t like that. You attack my way of receiving information, the way I talk about information, and who I am in general and all I have done is refute what you have stated. So, what are you scared of again? My passion? Doesn’t surprise me at all. I am not antagonistic to any person in particular, but ideas that don’t mesh with reality.

  If everything you believe in has to be constantly reformatted and not just some things, doesn’t that mean that you keep believing in things, ever knowing that everything you believe in is a lie? That’s no way to look at the world, friend. If you have some way of arguing what I have said, please do so, but stop saying things that just aren’t true, just because my belief poses a threat to your belief.

  What I have a passion for is the truth, so don’t tell me that that’s dangerous or that scares you, because I don’t care. The truth is terrible and bitter sometimes, but it’s better to know the truth than live in ignorance. It may be bliss for the one, but it often causes mayhem for others. I’d rather know that my life was in danger and have a chance to do something about it, than be told I’m safe and then get killed because I didn’t have the chance to protect myself.

• Scott // Nov 6, 2006 at 11:56 pm

  I’m not your friend.

  If you value truth and evidence and rational debate so much, give me one shred of evidence backing the religious conviction that started you out on this tirade. I have yet to be given one shred of evidence; physical, spiritual or otherwise, to suggest that the religion you defend holds truth to me. Empirical evidence is all you have provided and that is relative to the individual.

  My points are vague to you because you search for validation instead of seeing the silver lining.

  you act as an obstinate force that refuses social progress.

  Tact is something you have absolutely no idea about. This is no dialogue. This is you trying to prove to someone that you are intelligent and rational. This is you trying to somehow get someone to see how true you can hold to your convictions.

  Antagonism has no solution because it pits individuals against each other. Apparently you have no desire to find understanding and education, you would rather prove yourself right and holier than thou.

  You stated in an earlier rant that you believe in compassion. Nothing in the way that you communicate here suggests you are compassionate. Instead you are volatile and combative.

  So once again, I challenge you to get your ideas across to me in a way that I might consider them valid. Because so far, all you have done is made an adversary out of a free spirit.

  Out of self preservation, I refuse to continue this stifled conversation unless I see you budging from your condescending high horse.

  I hope you find an exit to your bitter view of the world (or as you call it “truth”).

• Paul // Nov 7, 2006 at 10:30 am

  (1) It’s not a tirade, it is an impassioned lecture against misinformation.

  (2) I have not even attempted to defend my religion, and I don’t need to. All I did was to state my beliefs in an explanation of a compassionate environment that I grew up in.
  I never even said that the religion that I believe in(you use defend, but I haven’t done that) holds truth for you.

  (3) You say that I only offer empirical evidence, which is based on evidence or experience. The opposite of that is conjectural, hypothetical, or theoretical, things without evidence. My empirical evidence is relative to the individual, but it holds true to many, many individuals and the ones that it doesn’t “hold true” to often have nothing to back it up with, including you.

  Your points are not vague to me, your reasoning is. I know that you are also after an agenda. An agenda of just proving me wrong, but all you can attack are my methods and not my ideas. I don’t see a silver lining in your agenda. I just see the spread of more lies. I have continually stated how and why what I believe in is based on principles of ethics and not simply from a religious conviction. You keep trying to alienate me as some person that wants to do you and others harm. You keep saying things that come across to people as “You’re out to get me with your religion” or “You’re antagonistic and that’s bad”. Let me tell you something, one of the synonyms for antagonist is competitor. Are you afraid to have a competitor for your belief. You have paid attention to almost none of my points. That’s why you keep asking for evidence, you didn’t catch the evidence the first time that I laid it out for you. That’s why you keep attacking me without point or reasoning. Your agenda lacks substance.

  (4) It is apparent that you understand nothing about the healthy debate of opposing views or beliefs. If you can’t stand the fire, stay out of the kitchen. “You’re combative”, you say. Why, because I disagree with you, because I back it up with reasoning, facts, and solid points, or because my debating with you doesn’t give your free spirit a fuzzy feeling. I’m not here to give you a fuzzy feeling. If you’re spreading lies, I don’t want you to feel comfortable. If you’re attacking what I believe is true, then you have made yourself a competitor out of me at least in debate, but adversary is a stronger word. I’d much rather see you as my friend, but like I said, you keep attacking me and that strains the relationship. I keep friends that are intelligent and can handle the competition of healthy debate of ideas. You say that I lack tact, but you keep attacking me with lies. You keep trying to label me with things that aren’t true. I can’t understand you at all, not for lack of trying. You keep telling me that being argumentative and passionate about trying to stop a possible spread of hate and prejudice and the definitive spread of misinformation is not tactful, but while you have been personally, slanderously, and untruthfully attacking why I believe what I believe is tactful in your eyes. I know nothing of tact, you say. With the lies that you have said about me, I have given you far more tact than you deserve and I will continue to do so.

  (5)”This is no dialogue. This is you trying to prove to someone that you are intelligent and rational.” Those are your words. You started this “non-dialogue” when you attempted to prove to someone that I’m not intelligent or rational instead of adding healthy debate to the conversation. Did you really expect me to not respond to that? Please. You invited debate. You invited combat of words. I don’t know what you consider volatile, but I don’t think I’m about to break into open violence which is I think the definition that you’re trying to run away with.

  (6)I am sincerely all for social progress, but I don’t think I could ever accept where you want society to progress. Although, I wouldn’t know, because you have not talked about any real issues whatsoever. In some ways, our society has progressed upwards towards a better society, and there has been social progress downwards in a destructive direction. Some people have called movements in society, social progress, when society hasn’t gone anywhere at all. Social progress as a good thing is a matter of opinion and furthering social progress is just another agenda and where society progresses depends on whether that social progress is good or bad or meaningless. Telling me that I “refute social progress”, just means that I refute what you consider to be social progress.

  (7)”Antagonism has no solution because it pits individuals against each other.” Since a synonym of antagonism is competition, this is obviously just another false statement. Competition in every area of life can enhance life, from exploration to inventing to debate and any other success in life. Without competition, none of us would progress. Especially when there is no competition of ideas.

  (8) I want to attack all your methods and the things you say and your entire “free as a bird” way of thinking, but you are only worth passion and fervor and zeal so long as you are lying about me and I think I’ve already proved that true through your own words and a little rationality. I don’t view the world bitterly, I view the world as it envelops itself to me in good and bad ways through my journey in life. I view the world with hope for the future, but with the realization that we could ruin that future. It’s up to us to help society to progress to a place where it’s not about the individual, where we care more about others than ourselves.

  I am almost positive that you will return this post with more slander and more combativeness since you are against any belief that you do not understand, but unless you or someone else has something real to say, I am done. So go ahead, tell me that I draw absolutelty no productive conclusions, that I’m impassioned without flexibility, that I’m only backing a religious conviction, that I’m only searching for validation, that I have no desire to find understanding or education and that I would rather prove myself right and holier than thou, that I won’t budge from a condescending high horse, that I have a bitter view of the world, that I’m bigoted, ill-thinking, closed-minded, antagonistic, oxymoronic(a word that I invented years ago, but later found to be actually in the dictionary) or combative, or volatile, or pigheaded, or stubborn, or cantakerous, curmudgeony, hardheaded, insolent, unreasonable, intolerant, or anything else that you can think of. I am bowing out of this conversation unless the discussion of ideas to which this post has concerned itself with rises like a pheonix from these ridiculous ashes. Scott, I will end with your quote that there wasn’t “anything [you] have said that invalidates [my] points.” Exactly right, you really, honestly said nothing at all about the real points of the conversation. Kudos to you for attacking me and wasting both our time. Good day.

• James // Nov 7, 2006 at 4:30 pm

  Wow what an amazing read, my thanks to the both of you, however ZI agree with scott…sorry.

• Scott // Nov 7, 2006 at 9:11 pm

  Haha.. “curmudgeony”.. that’s good.. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Reminds me of a nasty tempered uncle I have living in Florida. He used to be an interrogator for the US military. Now he’s an outcast from the family because all he does is critique and pick at everyone who doesn’t think the way he does (the only people I have ever come across who hold this line of thinking are loners). He has an e-mail newsletter called “The Curmudgeon Pages”. He’s an extremely intelligent guy, though unmeasurably miserable with life; so he has nothing better to do than cut everyone else down to make himself feel better.

  On one hand I feel really bad for him, because he is so blindly arrogant, there’s really no foreseeable escape to his stagnant reality. I imagine that his time in the military left quite an impression, one that he very likely could never have imagined. On the other hand, I fear him because he represents the oppressive stranglehold of the bloated American ego. I truly believe this is what drives war and consequentially will be the end of humanity unless we find a way to release.

• Harvard Law // Nov 15, 2006 at 1:29 pm

  This is one of the most twisted blogs that I have ever visited. Is this trash printed just so you kids can have a go at each other? Is this a joke? I mean–this displays ignorance from the essayist to the debaters; it’s hilarious!!

• Antonio // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:50 am

  Well since your name is Harvard Law, perhaps you’d care to shed some light on our ignorance?

• Sphynx // Nov 21, 2006 at 12:34 pm

  Although I’m sure alot of interested things were said in the lengthy followup debate, it was too long for me to read, so if I repeat things said, my apologies.

  NBC has a right to ‘abridge’ anything. If they want to do an all-christian year-long marathon, they have that right. If Madonna really wants to show herself on a cross, there’s plenty of media sources that’ll gladly do that for her. I don’t see how christians in general have anything to do with that corporate decision.

  Limiting or prohibiting Abortion is in no way about your rights. It’s about the rights of the child. I am pro-abortion, but would never make an inane assumption such as thinking I had a ‘unalienable right’ to it. If the government says no, then so be it, they have as much of a right as I do to determine whose ‘will’ prevails between mine or the unborn child.

  The Iranian president can go to hell, right along with the Venzuelan. You wanna Jyhad a country, you don’t have any rights to expect hugs from the enemy in the process. I don’t think that decision had anything to do with religion, just common sense.

  Side note: I am not a Christian and am not supporting the christian way of life. But the issues brought forth in that essay made little sense.

• Scott // Nov 21, 2006 at 10:33 pm

  Sphynx, I wonder if you are aware of the power that Christianity or other special interest groups have over our media. I wonder if you are familiar with Rupert Murdock and his ownership of the FOX Broadcasting Company and I wonder if you’re familiar with the extremely biased position FOX takes when they report supposed “news”. I wonder if you’re aware of how biased most media sources are these days due to the influence of the almighty dollar combined with special interests. I wonder if you’re familiar with the roots of journalism and how it was once percieved that journalists had a duty to serve the public just as any public figure should, to report truth without the influence of special interests.

  Simply based on your words above it seems to me that you aren’t familiar with these concepts. Otherwise you might have a bit more empathy for people who don’t just sit back idle and recieve information from just any source.

  If you’re interested in learning more about these concepts, check out:

  “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomski. (in fact just about anything by Noam Chomski is great)

  “News: The Politics of Illusion” by W. Lance Bennett

  Watch the documentaries: “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” or “Control Room”

  In resonse to your comments about Venezuela:

  Check out, “Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil: My Life and Times in a Racist Imperialist Society” by Inga Muscio.

  There’s a chapter in there all about Hugo Chavez that gives a very different perspective than the one we are fed by those in power here in the good ol’ US of A.

  If you don’t feel like reading that one, check out:

  http://www.ingalagringa.com/blueeyeddevil/resources/index.html

  It’s the resource guide for “Autobiography…”. There’s a wealth of information there that might at least give you an idea that there’s a lot more going on in our world than meets the American media eye.

• Sphynx // Nov 22, 2006 at 3:54 am

  Scott, yes I am and have been aware of those things. And while it might be ethical for journalists to print the truth, it’s not obligatory. However, this isn’t journalism being discussed, if you’re referring to the Madonna on the Cross. This is entertainment. I don’t get your stations over here, but I’m guessing that they had no problem stating the facts of what Madonna wanted to do, and that they wouldn’t do it. That’s journalism. From an entertainment point of view, they have the same right to not show whatever they want to pump ratings. Complaining that they don’t show Madonna on a Cross is more equivalent to complaining that they don’t show massively violent shows. Corporations have a right to make money on entertainment, and thus to censor any entertainment they like in whatever manner they like.

• Scott // Nov 22, 2006 at 4:23 pm

  I just think that this is a bit more complicated than your view of Journalism and entertainment being completely separate entities. We have a media atmosphere that has a difficult time separating the two things and therefore somehow should come up with ways of getting truth out without bias. I just don’t see that happening.

  I am not completely familiar with the particular Madonna story that was referred to in this blog, so I cannot speak specifically to that. However, I do think that since we have come to a point where the majority of people rely on comedians to report the news, people like Bill O’Reilly are seen as reporters and newspapers have blatant political agendas, something is very wrong with our overall perspective of not only our own lives but life on a global level. This was demonstrated with your remarks about Iran and Venezuela: How is it seen as reasonable to view a whole country as evil? How do westerners justify seeing infinitely complex issues in such simplistic terms? We are so arrogant and I think it might be time to take a step down off our high horse for once.

• Sphynx // Nov 23, 2006 at 3:41 am

  First off, to clear up one thing before I comment on the rest. I never ever said ‘Iran and Venezuela’, I specifically said their presidents. I never blame a people for the actions of an individual, that’s prejudice.

  As for my view on Journalism vs Entertainment; regardless of how you (or perhaps some of the Americans) view the merging of the 2, they are still quite seperate entities. Anyone relying on comedy for their news has issues and is already receiving an extremely biased source of news since sarcasm (the primary tool of political comedians) degrades instead of gives an unbiased point of view. Like it or not, they are seperate entities, entertainment and journalism, with different responsibilities.

  Expectation does not equal neccesity or responsibility.

• Scott // Nov 23, 2006 at 11:00 am

  How much time have you spent in the USA? I don’t know what perspective you’re coming from but I seriously don’t know of one mainstream source of “news” that isn’t biased and could be considered entertainment these days. The closest sources that I can identify are: NPR, which is far removed from the mainstream; and the BBC, which isn’t American and which I have heard plenty of criticism from Europeans about it’s biased nature.

  I apologize for misinterpreting you on Iran and Venezuela.

• Sphynx // Nov 24, 2006 at 4:56 am

  I’m not talking about the requirements of Journalism though, I’ve only commented on the requirements of Entertainment (or lack thereof).

• Scott // Nov 25, 2006 at 6:19 pm

  Thats precisely my point. American “news” sources ARE entertainment. There really is no seperating the two things, journalism and entertainment, in American media. I hardly see a difference between local news, national news sources, and other forms of enterainment. This is especially true when considering that most major media sources find entertainment related stories (ie. Mel Gibsons anti-semitic rantings, Madonna’s concerts, or the break up of Brittany Spears and Kevin Federline) news worthy.

  I should note that I mis-typed a sentence in my last entry:

  “I seriously don’t know of one mainstream source of “news” that isn’t biased and could be considered entertainment these days.”

  It should say “could NOT be considered…”

• Sphynx // Nov 26, 2006 at 8:48 am

  That is the problem with the ‘news sources’, not the ‘entertainment sources’. Nothing about the actual Madonna show was for the ‘news source’. That decision was for the Entertainment side of things. Asking your Entertainment to be news worthy because your news is entertainment worthy isn’t exactly a logical approach.

• Scott // Nov 26, 2006 at 12:12 pm

  But this is where you are missing my point. I’m making the point that perhaps you are misinformed about news sources in the US. NBC was the network in question from the original blog and is one of several major networks that Americans go to for their news AND their entertainment. It is very rarely separated. It all meddles together to become a mish mosh of information that most Americans have trouble deciphering. There have been many many studies done on this issue alone. I gave you some good sources to check into so you might be more educated into the subject. I wonder if you looked into them.

  You said yourself in an earlier entry that you don’t get our stations over there.. I think therein lies the problem. I’m not sure that you can have a complete picture of our media situation here in America unless you are exposed to it first hand, on a regular basis.

  I’m not advocating for censorship, in fact quite the opposite. I’m advocating for truth.

• Sphynx // Nov 26, 2006 at 12:27 pm

  I do get your point entirely. I think you’re wrong. The NBC News is at certain times of the day, and clearly marked. 5am, 8am, 12, 5pm, etc. That’s the news. If you’re watching an entertainment show for the latest news, that’s just wrong. No part of any concert is the news. If they want to show the concert, editted without Madonna on a Cross, that’s entertainment. Just like I wouldn’t expect Star Trek to be based on scientific fact.

• Scott // Nov 26, 2006 at 5:57 pm

  Well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.. but again, I don’t think you’re coming from an educated position. You still have yet to respond to my inquiries about the books and films I recommended.

• Sphynx // Nov 27, 2006 at 11:02 am

  And I won’t.

• Dana // Dec 11, 2006 at 12:52 am

  While Bush may indeed be a buffoon, there certainly is evidence which can be pointed to which supports the conclusion, calling Christians who oppose the Madonna depiction of a crucifixion scene “terrorist” demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the meaning of “terrorist” as well as the way a capitalist economy works.
  Terrorist use the violence to influence activity. Letter writing and threats of boycotts have not, to my knowledge, been deemed “violent”. Though with the advent of “hate speech” laws and the PC extension of “hate” to nearly any position which presumes to disagree with the mantra of moral relativism, my information could be dated.
  The “threat” which cause NBC to rethink the Madonna concert was the threat of a boycott, an accepted and honorable tool available within a free capitalistic society…..I’m guessing you do not favor this sort or acivity since you view it as “terrorist”.

• Scott // Dec 11, 2006 at 12:27 pm

  I think the objective here is to expand upon the definition of the meaning of the word “terrorist” slightly. You seem to have a grasp of this concept with your citing of the use of the word “hate” (I’d be curious what you think is being considered “hate” but should not be). Censorship is equatable to ethnic cleansing as far as I’m concerned. So yes, I would consider it terrorism not allowing people a choice in what sort of information they are receiving.

  Could you please explain further what you meant by “moral relativism”? If I’m not mistaken it sounds like you should be referring to moral pluralism instead, since I don’t know many people who would advocate or defend violent lifestyles here. That would be a common thread that links us all together, regardless of religious or moral convictions in general.

• TT // Dec 12, 2006 at 5:07 pm

  Wow!

  Paul- or anyone- explain, please, why a thirteen year old girl who is a victim of incestual rape who then becomes pregnant, should have to have that baby?

  I would love to hear the “compassionate” reason for this.

• Antonio // Dec 13, 2006 at 8:36 am

  Well I would not really know, but the argument I have heard usually goes along the lines that it was not the baby that committed the rape and that violence committed against the girl should not be perpetuated by committing another equally heinous act or some ludicrousness such as that….

• Jessie // Dec 21, 2006 at 6:07 pm

  Then Antonio your postion about abortion comes down to save the child. Step back and think, first this child will not have a happy life in most “not all but most” cases. The mother will not be able to look at the child and not see what happened. She now has a living breathing reminder, and somewhere to now vent that anger. IF the child is given up for adoption then that is often times not a fair or decent alternitive. If you need proof speak to more then just one adopted person try fifty to a hundred. More stories will be of bad foster parents, home hoping, and/or feeling out of place through thier youth.

  Then you have a poorly adjusted adult at best in many cases “again not all but most”.

  No compassion for parent or child Antonio, none at all.

  I know someone is going to say BUT I AM ADOPTED. please step back remmber the stories of your peers. IF you had a happy ending how many did not? if you don’t know call them up.

• Charles // Dec 29, 2006 at 1:02 pm

  Christians killed alot of my ancestors because they refused to convert. Present day evangelicals tell me I am going to suffer eternally if I refuse to convert, and have generally inflicted their unpleasantness upon me. Successful christian proseletyzing is a form of religious/cultural extermination. It is wrong, it is evil. I refuse to convert.

• Erin // Jan 10, 2007 at 11:41 am

  Please forgive the spelling mistakes i will undoubtedly make. I think the author has a lot of good point, and many persuasive arguements, however i believe that most, or atleast some, of these could be more solid. For example, the arguement about abortion, while many christians are avidly pro-choice because of religous beliefs, religous beliefs are not the only factor. If it ws PURELY a question of religous outlook then it wouldn’t be as big as it is, but the pro-life side has a convincing arguement even without Christianity because with out interferance and barring a miscarriage that fetus will be/ is a unique individual, more over a vulnerable, helpless individual. So, the arguement of Christian beliefs being imposed upon us by the gov. is only partially valid.

  One last thing and I’ll wrap it up. The TV network not showing maddonnna? THat’s not a gov. agencies, the gov., as far as i know, did not censor Maddonna’s crusifixion. Under the 1st amendment a TV station has every right to decide what and what not to show and those who threatened a boycotte effectivly exercised their forst amendment right to protest. Perhaps the network was wrong to give in but they run a business and shouldn’t be faulted too much for trying to avoid bankrupcy. Maybe the protesters shouldn’t have protested, I know i didn’t apriciate it, they could have simply not watched the broadcast, but they have their rights too and I can not deny them that.

  Thanks for you time,
  Erin

• Jeremy // Feb 8, 2007 at 3:01 pm

  I feel that there are a couple of points that should be made here.

  First of all, calling either side of the abortion debate “pro-life” or “pro-choice” is doing a disservice to either side. We are all pro life, ad all pro choice. If you really believe it, cal it pro- or anti-abortion. Why put a sweet little name on it?

  Second, as to the definition of what constitures a terrorist: a terorist is someone who wishes to influence events or situations through the use of terror, not simply through violence. Terror means many things to many people. To a network exec, terror may be the loss of stock share or even his job due to a Christian boycott of his network. To a closeted gay man (or woman), terror may be the shame and embarassment that may be heaped upon him if his community finds out, or even that he will no longer enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of the community once he is outed. To a teen girl facing the prospect of a life ever changed because daddy couldn’t keep his hands off her, terror may be having to ever after care for and raise a product of daddy’s excesses because some people she never met and is never likely to said she couldn’t do anything about it. Or to a government research scientist, terror may be the thought of losing his life’s work or having it tainted becasue the government in power does not agree with his findings and thinks that they may be against Christian thought.

• Lauren // Apr 8, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  there is so much disrespect for human life in this world it makes me sick. i do not know a single Christian that truly lives the life that Jesus taught. what ever happened to love thy neighbor? do unto others as you would have them do unto you? if we are all God’s children then why is it okay to hate and kill each other - like killing your brothers and sisters - does that make God proud of his children? i am not a Christian, but i do like to think of myself as a good person who tries not to judge anyone unfairly - especially with regard to religion. a lot of times crimes are committed out of desperation and it’s a lot easier to just think badly of them instead of trying to understand them. have sympathy for your fellow man. show compassion for people that don’t have direction in their lives. be a good role model and set an example of a good person who strives to live a good life - unselfishly. i believe that the teachings of Christ are good. very good. they seem fair to me and peaceful. unbiased. he is a person that set a wonderful example of how to live and he still had a pretty rough life. even if he never existed at all and the bible is just a made up story - it’s a pretty good one. like i said, i am not a Christian, but one thing i am and i will always be until the day i die is a person with the opportunity and ability to do good and help others if i can. i believe that is a responsibility that i was born with. i’m sure many people don’t agree with me, but that is not going to change how i feel about my own life and the lives of others. i understand that there will always be war and pain. the whole world isn’t ever going to get along. there will always be hate. it’s up to each individual to decide how they want to live their lives and hopefully they will choose to not hurt or kill other people. i can’t make the decision for anyone but myself. and i choose to not force my beliefs on anyone. i just try to make the best decision and set a good example. just my opinion. thanks for listening.

• Fredric L. Rice // Aug 16, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  > Just because they have a different opinion
  > than you doesn’t give you any right call
  > them terrorists.

  Most Christians ARE terrorists or terrorist simpathizers. It’s the nature of the death cult that they follow.

  Christianity’s history is one of mass murder, rape, torture, treason, hatred, and bigotry. ALL Christians today who have joined the death cult are in defacto agreement with the death cult that they joined. They know their death cult’s history and they ACCEPT it by being followers.

  Christian terrorism is a far bigger threat to the United States and to the rest of the world than Islamic terrorism. Christian butchers have raped, tortured, and murdered something like half a million innocent people in Iraq — and they did it because they’re Christian.

  Let’s face some other undeniable truths here: Had the people of Iraq also been Christians, this fascist terrorist Christian State here in the United States would have invaded, raped, tortured, and murdered just as many innocent people.

  That’s Christianity.

  Denial of what Christianity is all about is one of the major reasons why Christian terrorism and Christian fascism is allowed to contniue.

• dan // Dec 12, 2007 at 1:11 pm

  Wasn’t Jesus’s message love thy neighbor?
  ;not onward christian soldiers kill indiscrminately?

  this christian fascism is very scary ; and an example why the founding fathers delibertely made an consitiution seperate of church and state. If not we need to organize and resist this leviathan of fearand repression; before we are all tortured at Gitmo.

  Peoplle shouldn’t be afriad of thier governments, governments should be afraid of thier people . V for Vendetta

• mossman // Feb 29, 2008 at 9:51 am

  I believe that all of you who have attacked Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, are simply terrified of the unknown. You have seen no physical evidence, yet so many people believe in these religions, and that scares you to no end.

• Scott // Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17 am

  Or perhaps it is you, mossman who is terrified of not knowing and therefore you embrace dogma. For without the structure of false belief you would be crippled with fear. Just a contrasting illustration.. I’m an agnostic.. I don’t feel the need to embrace archaic tenets. I feel comfort in the question with no answer.

• jelo // Mar 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm

  I follow Abrahamic scripture. I am not Jewish, Christian or Muslim yet at the same time, in a sense, I am all three. I know, sounds contradictory, but it works for me.

  With that said, it astonishes me how so many of the faithful from any religion can claim to be so tolerant and yet in actions and words prove that they are not?

  It amazes me how when someone from one’s own religion commits a heinous act that somehow they must not be true believers of that religion…yet when someone from another religion commits a heinous act that is just proof of what the other religion is really about?

  It is a false belief that any one religion is about peace or violence. When it comes to the Abrahamic faiths it is both about peace and violence. It is obvious from the Torah, Bible and Qur’an that God states there is time for peace and time for violence. Destroying whole towns? Soddom & Gomorah? That was terrorism right there! Right and wrong is a human invention separate from God. Yahweh/Allah is a God of peace and violence as it serves His purposes.

  As I have stated, I believe in the God of Abraham but I do not believe that my way is the only way and I derive this belief from scripture…the same scriptures that many that believe in the same God as I seem to miss. God works in mysterious ways so who am I to question?

  At one time I was an agnostic with atheist leanings…I did not appreciate back then when the religious would try to convert me. As now as a religious person I still do not appreciate it…you see, no matter how religious you are, even if you are of the same basic belief system as them they will still try to convert you to their exact way of believing. I do not try to convert others so do not try to convert me…I am open to sharing and if what you have to say is truly the one and only way then your attempts at conversion would not be necessary…I would automatically have to believe, wouldn’t I?

• Abu Zakariyya // Sep 24, 2008 at 8:18 am

  Bismillah hir rahman nir Rahim
  (In the name of Allah the most Merciful the most Gracious)

  I bear witness that There is no Deity or God worthy of worship but Allah who is One and has no Partners and further bear witness Muhammad is the Slave and Messenger of Allah

  Every Man came to this world not on his own volition nor leave it on his own volition but was created by the one Allah the most Sublime. He did not create and bring forth mankind in vain but for a noble purpose - to see who is most obedient to him by submitting to his will and command as conveyed to Mankind by his Prophets sent to various nations, tribes and clans at different stages of Mankind’s history. Those who accepted the religion of each Prophet based on the Unity of Allah were successful. They preached that this life is transitory and the real life is the one which has no end after death that is in Heaven for the successful Believers and the disobedient and transgressors - Hell. With the coming of the last and the seal of Prophethood - Muhammad, the mandate of all the previous Prophets and their religions lapsed. The Quran says there is no compulsion in Religion and the Truth is clear from Falsehood. Allah the most Sublime sent 124,000 of his Prophets from the first man on Earth - Adam (on whom be peace) followed by the rest among them viz - Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Moosa), David (Dawood) and Jesus (Eesa) peace be upon all of Allah’s Prophets. Till the last day (doomsday) only one religion will be acceptable that is ISLAM which literally means PEACE in the true sense. Any person who embraces this Faith and lives according to its tenets will achieve true success in this all too brief sojourn in this world and in the everlasting true physical life in the hereafter culminating in Jannath (Heaven) - this is for all Mankind be it American/European/ African/ Asian - Arab/Indian/Chinese/American/European - Rich/Poor/Educated/Illiterate/Healthy/Ailing/Young/Elderly/Men/Women. Please do not betray yourself and your everlasting future after death. May Allah the most Sublime give you true Guidance . Ameen

Leave a Comment