SWEET JESUS I LOVE JACKIE MASON!!

He's a mensch!

need to get Jackie on with Gibson so the keithy wondersmuck can listen as he's writing his worthy show for the nightly O'Reilly trounching of his bathtub frame. Gibby and Jackie now there's a tv and radio show for Fox.

During the broadcast, New York lawyer Raoul Felder, who is a frequent co-author of Mason's commentaries, attacked the character of Islam's Prophet Muhammad. He also said: "This (Islam) is a religion of hate, this is a religion of murder."

Mason responded by amplifying Felder's bigotry.

He said: "This is amazing information that almost nobody is aware of...everyone thinks that it's a legitimate religion that preaches love and brotherhood…the truth of the matter is (that terrorists) are reflecting the religion and following the religion…they are following the orders of the religion directly from the Quran…in plain English (sic.) the whole Muslim
religion is preaching and teaching hate, terrorism and murder, and nobody knows it, and its about time they found out about it…The Quran…is 50 versions of hate, venom, hostility, and murder…dedicated to terrorism…I don't know how we can call it a religion in the traditional sense. It should be called a murderous organization that's out to kill people."

What a MENSCH!!

Now, that's journalism! Miserable, a perfect word to describe Ulbermahn.

VOK, let me get this straight, Jackie mason calls Keef a 'schmuck', and your response is to defend Islam. Yikes. Olbyloons have a funny way about them.

vokie, what's laughable, is your lil buddy lil mikey has the stupidity to call me a troll and you post crap like that. Thanks for that!

"your lil buddy ili mikey has the stupidity to call me a troll".

I call you a troll because your ARE a troll. You respond to almost every post, whether or not they are directed at or involve you...and you inject yourself into almost every debate, whether or not you are part of that debate. You also mangle the name of EVERY person you disagree with, as if that somehow gives your brain dead opinion more clout.

That is what trolls do!

so vok, you are implying it's a religion of peace? Only a roll-over demonut could believe those that murder million's in the name of religion and want servitude by all to their belief's as a peaceful religion(?). Let's test your theory. I'm sure you will happily post a nice scathing post here about the murders and slaughtering of innocent men, women and children in the name of Islam and how disgusted you are by it. And being a peaceful religion you fear not happily post for those of Muslium faith your name and address so the can come and thank you for your smack down and honest opinion of their religion.

"VOK, let me get this straight, Jackie mason calls Keef a 'schmuck', and your response is to defend Islam."

I'm not defending anyone and I don't directly address the O word here. Just thought some people would want to know that JM thinks and states that all Muslims are murderers, just like you do, Menschy. I understand you think this makes him even better, because you are IMO latently genocidal and pretty unstable.

"could believe those that murder million's in the name of religion and want servitude by all to their belief's as a peaceful religion(?)."

Christianity seems to be O.K. to me.

The first and second wave of Crusaders murdered, raped and plundered their way up the Rhine and down the Danube as they headed for Jerusalem. The "army" was primarily composed of untrained peasants with their families, with a core of trained soldiers. (You are the former, Cox the later). On the way to the Middle East, they decided that only one of their goals was to wrest control of Jerusalem from the Muslims. A secondary task was to rid the world of as many non-Christians as possible - both Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders gave the Jews two choices in their slogan: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!" 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed as the first Crusade passed through. Some Jewish writers refer to these events as the "first holocaust." Once the army reached Jerusalem and broke through the city walls, they slaughtered all the inhabitants that they could find (men, women, children, newborns). After locating about 6,000 Jews holed up in the synagogue, they set the building on fire; the Jews were burned alive. The Crusaders found that about 30,000 Muslims had fled to the al Aqsa Mosque. The Muslim were also slaughtered without mercy.

The Roman Catholic church taught that going to war against the "Infidels" was an act of Christian penance. If a believer was killed during a crusade, he would bypass purgatory, and be taken directly to heaven. By eliminating what might be many millennia of torture in Purgatory, many Christians were strongly motivated to volunteer for the crusades. "After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church." 3

These mass killings were repeated during each of the 8 additional crusades until the final, 9th, crusade in 1272 CE. Both Christians and Muslims believed that they were fighting on God's side against Satan; they believed that if they died on the battlefield they would be given preferential treatment in the Christian Heaven or the Muslim Paradise. Battles were fought with a terrible fierceness and a massive loss of life. Over a 200 year period, perhaps 200,000 people were killed. The Muslim warrior Salah a-Din subsequently recaptured Jerusalem from the Christians.

By the end of the crusades, most European Christians believed the unfounded blood-libel myths -- the rumor that Jews engaged in human sacrifice of Christian children. A long series of Christian persecutions of the Jews continued in Europe and Russia into the 20th century. They laid the foundation for the Nazi Holocaust.

The result of centuries of conflict among followers of the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was a "deep mutual hatred" and mistrust among the three faiths. Memories of these genocides still influence relationships among Jews, Christians and Muslims to the present time.

Among many Jews and Muslims, the term crusade evokes visions of genocide, mass murder, and mass extermination of innocent people. However, among many Christians it has become a positive term, frequently used to refer to mass rallies and campaigns to win converts - as in the Billy Graham Crusades. Out of respect for the victims of the "first holocaust," we recommend that the term be only used to refer to the wars of the Middle Ages.

I call you a troll because your ARE a troll. You respond to almost every post, whether or not they are directed at or involve you...and you inject yourself into almost every debate, whether or not you are part of that debate. You also mangle the name of EVERY person you disagree with, as if that somehow gives your brain dead opinion more clout.

That is what trolls do!

Posted by: Mike at April 10, 2007 3:22 PM
Mike, you are guilty of all three. My occasional name changing is meant to be humorous, and is. This site, in case you didn't know, has a serious side and a humorous side. You, obviously, take it WAY too serious. Thanks for proving vokie is a troll and probably a muslim, just a guess.

VOK,
The Muslims attacked the Christian Romans first when they invaded the Roman Empire in the 7th Century. They started the war against the West.
The Crusades were a counter attack against Islam.

Royalking,
Notice leftists like VOK give Muslims a pass for the 7th Century Jihad?
I guess nwhen Mulsims went in and murdered and exterminated Christians, that was OK. But when the Christians turned the tables, that was bad.

VOK,
Why don't you talk about the Jihad of the 7th Century which eventually led to the Crusades?
Care to explain?

Silence from VOK!

What does the fact mean that terrorists like vok are defending Ulbermahn? If I was olby, I would not like this fact. Then again, I'm not olby.

Royalking,
You notice when the Leftists start their Pro-Islamic historical stance I silence then when I bring up the 7tch Century Jihad!

Why don't you talk about the Jihad of the 7th Century which eventually led to the Crusades?
Care to explain?

I can't explain it to you Joker. I really can't. You can't see two inches away from third grade justice and your proclivity for wanting to lump everyone together and mete out said "justice" is borderline frightening. "They started it???!?!" Really! No kidding? Let's get 'em. Good luck bathing in the glorious blood of your Muslim enemies, Menschy. I have done with you.

Ick.

Cecelia is glad you are here?

Icky Ick Ick. It's disgusting if she is straightforwardly serious and doubly icky ick if she means it in the "anything to drum up traffic, I'm a media whore" sense. Who else is glad Joker is here?

VOK,
You're dismissed. You bring up the Crusades to defend Islam, but leave out their Jihad in the 7th Century. The Crusaders were taking back Christian lands.
When you read history then we can talk. Until then don't speak on a subject you don't know about.
Stick to defending your cult leader Teheran Keith.

Ick.

Cecelia is glad you are here?

Icky Ick Ick. It's disgusting if she is straightforwardly serious and doubly icky ick if she means it in the "anything to drum up traffic, I'm a media whore" sense. Who else is glad Joker is here?

Posted by: VOK at April 10, 2007 5:08 PM

No, I meant it in THE----- enjoy the irony of watching an obstensively grown person saying "ich ich ich" and other junior high expressions like "who else doesn't like them, gang!", while relentlessly quarreling with the "icky kids" (who have no extraordinary public power) and simultaneously issuing opinions that it's obsessive to blog about a man who DOES have a public mircrophone----- SENSE. :D

I like Joker, Brandon, Royalking because they're funny and interesting too, as I do several even more in-your-face leftwing posters here.

Mason responded by amplifying Felder's bigotry.

He said: "This is amazing information that almost nobody is aware of...everyone thinks that it's a legitimate religion that preaches love and brotherhood…the truth of the matter is (that terrorists) are reflecting the religion and following the religion…they are following the orders of the religion directly from the Quran…in plain English (sic.) the whole Muslim
religion is preaching and teaching hate, terrorism and murder, and nobody knows it, and its about time they found out about it…The Quran…is 50 versions of hate, venom, hostility, and murder…dedicated to terrorism…I don't know how we can call it a religion in the traditional sense. It should be called a murderous organization that's out to kill people."

What a MENSCH!!

Posted by: VOK at April 10, 2007 2:54 PM

Yeah, Mason's a bigot. Now, let me tell you about that icky Christianity.... :D

No problem here. You have some issues with Christianity or the practice of it. Lots of Jews like Mason don't like Islam, I'm not down with the Wiccans...

But that Jackie Mason...now he's a bigot...

News flash:
Cecilia likes the other RW'ers at this site( no matter how lame their posts are)

She got lonely when this site closed up for a few weeks.

She got lonely when this site closed up for a few weeks.

Posted by: at April 10, 2007 8:24 PM

Well, give yourself some credit. EVERYONE missed you!

News flash:
Cecilia likes the other RW'ers at this site( no matter how lame their posts are)

She got lonely when this site closed up for a few weeks.

Posted by: at April 10, 2007 8:24 PM
Wrong, Cecelia calls me when she gets lonely, you fool. :) lol

Why do so-called secularists defend Islam as a religion of peace and then condemn Christians and Jews?

I am an atheist, not an antitheist. I acknowledge that most of my values come from Judeo-Christian philosophy. I also realize that their are nutbags in each religion, but I can SEE that it is Islam that says a person's shortcut to heaven is through Martyrdom and killing the infidel. These f---ers are nuts. So how do you defeat an enemy who thinks the afterlife is better than their current life, and cannot wait to get there?

I am not sure of that answer, but I am positive it is not appeasement. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. Radical ideology needs to spread to stay alive, it cannot exist constrained.

Liberals are too freakin stupid to acknowledge this fact. Yeah, I know George Bush is stupid, but that doesn't absolve you of your own lunacy.

"but I can SEE that it is Islam that says a person's shortcut to heaven is through Martyrdom and killing the infidel."

It absolutely doesn't matter what religion your society professes as to how likely it is to be violent and backwards. If disaffected, modernity haters had a Hare Krishna background, they would still do what they do, and they would cook up some religious justification for it. Christianity had almost the exact same "afterlife bonus for killing" during the crusades that is associated with Islam now. Christians are supposed to be waiting (with hopefull hearts) for Armageddon when most everyone gets slaughtered and sent to hell.

I'm not sure in absolute numbers in recent years which religions have done the most kiling per capita. At various times, the mindlessly bloodthristy kooks have been Christians, at times they have been Hindus, at times Muslims, at times even Bhuddists, at times atheists. Look at the hardship and cheapness of life inside these societies if you want to find a real link.

The problem with your "even I can see their religion tells them to kill" is simply that this is not WHY they kill, anymore than the reason we have welfare states in the west is because of Jesus telling us to take care of the poor. People lead religions, not the other way around. When you focus on someone's religion as evil you are just justifying and backing the religious war they and their leaders want.

"You have some issues with Christianity or the practice of it."

I do??? That's news to me. Why don't you fill me in on what problems I have with the practice of Christianity?

Cecelia's just beside herself because she lives in a world where a Butch Lesbian actually makes a better Father Figure than a Creepy Closeted Hypocrite Televangelist like Ted Haggard.

...And she's really starting to rethink the whole 'Abstinence Pledge' thing since the Wiccans and Pagans are now procreating faster than the Christians.

Bring back the pregnant 11-year old Christians...We Need Them!

"The problem with your "even I can see their religion tells them to kill" is simply that this is not WHY they kill, anymore than the reason we have welfare states in the west is because of Jesus telling us to take care of the poor. People lead religions, not the other way around. When you focus on someone's religion as evil you are just justifying and backing the religious war they and their leaders want."

---------------------------------------------
Well, you're going to have flesh the above out a bit more, otherwise it's utterly specious.

It reads like you're essentially arguing that there are no inherently bad and corrupting philosophies there are just bad people. Well, run that up the flagpole and we'll salute it.

That bad men corrupt the world around them is doubtlessly true, but to use this truism to the degree you mention, means that the dogma that caused death and repression in the USSR is not to be distinguished in perniciousness the corruption that caused any sort of historical human rights violations that have happened in our democracy. It's an attempt at a "which came first the chicken or the egg"-- ecumenical condemnation thrown out in order not to seem "bigoted" that results in rendering any sort of standard meaningless.

The fact that any philosophy can be corrupted by bad men in no way negates the fact that there are bad philosophies, with bad practices that can corrupt good men.

Jews like Don Feder and Jackie Mason denouncing the religion of Islam and the effect it has had in their ancestral neighborhood as far as safety, peace, human rights, amiability to economic advancement, etc, may be "biased" in the sense that a direct and personal threat tends to make one bigoted towards the thing doing the threatening, but their words contain far more realism and commonsense than yours above.

Cecelia's just beside herself because she lives in a world where a Butch Lesbian actually makes a better Father Figure than a Creepy Closeted Hypocrite Televangelist like Ted Haggard.

...And she's really starting to rethink the whole 'Abstinence Pledge' thing since the Wiccans and Pagans are now procreating faster than the Christians.

Bring back the pregnant 11-year old Christians...We Need Them!

Posted by: at April 12, 2007 3:12 PM

There's nothing having someone from the other side spewing out a bunch insults filled with hyperbolic stereotypes based on political party and religious creed, in the midst of an argument about relgious bigotry and realistic condemnation. Especially when they're attempting to demonstrate how fanatical YOU are. :D

I know you don't really mean to excel at the things you condemn others about. You're just clueless as to what's being discussed.

Thanks very much anyway!

There's nothing having someone from the other side spewing out a bunch insults filled with hyperbolic stereotypes based on political party and religious creed, in the midst of an argument about relgious bigotry and realistic condemnation. Especially when they're attempting to demonstrate how fanatical YOU are. :D

I know you don't really mean to excel at the things you condemn others about. You're just clueless as to what's being discussed.

Thanks very much anyway!

Posted by: Cecelia at April 12, 2007 5:18 PM
Amen.

Are we confounding religion and philosophy here, Cecelia? O.K. The point is that Islam the religion can be and has been a force for civilization or it's opposite, just like Christianity or any other religion. The Mensch you mentioned and applauded is saying that Islam itself turns people into killers, that it is not a religion at all but a murderous organization. That is stupid bigotry, completely absent any rational context. Your attempt to partially excuse it because of "fear" is particularly weak.

There may be "bad philosophies," or even "bad religions," as opposed to bad implementations of them, which you and Mason are arguing here. But isn't the onus on YOU to show how these are particularly bad in principal? Islam has at times in it's relatively short history been incrementally more tolerant and more civilizing than it's contemporary competing religions, cf. most of the middle ages. If you read any religious text in a shallow and ungenerous way, you can easily see it as neccessarily corrupting and productive of all the current ills. Christians and Jews celebrate stories of god indiscriminantly murdering their enemies (it's the main Jewish holiday, for god's sake) or people hearing the voice of god telling them to kill, maim, stone, etc. Every tradition has it's share of pre-modern, violent desiderata. That doesn't mean everyone, or even a majority, or even a significant minority is motivated by it today. And when you act like it does, and worse, act like it MUST, you are wrong and wrong in a way that unfortunately makes you a bigot.

Consider if we didn't happen to be characterized by the same Christian tradition from which Nazi germany came how neccessarily evil Christianity would have looked. I'm sure we would have turned that into a holy war too. You need to work on using your botomless pit of relativism for some perspective.

VOK,
1. As to your last post in your attempt to dismiss all appeals to religion in regards to law as being essentially tyrannical, I read your post and then it went to the archives after that.

Let me say that you argue that the Founders were appealing to nature or the provable...I think you put it... physical laws of nature when they referenced a Creator as a negation of that basis for my argument that the Founders themselves founded our most basic rights on an appeal to a deity. However, there is nothing in nature or the laws of nature that endows men their rights, that gives PROOF that the rights of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, exist at all or that they are "good" in any sense. Quite the contrary. If you can show me otherwise I will be glad to the point of giddiness.

Not all the Founders were deists and deism does not reference nature in the way a scientist or atheist references it. What the Founders did argue is that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator and that they are "self-evident" because he....not nature...has written them on our hearts.

It is not nature that inspires men to protect the weakness, the sickest, the most vulnerable among them...and to know that this is "goodness". Again, we see quite the opposite in nature or in nature's laws.

That the Founders were appealing to a higher power than a King, in no way, mitigates the fact that they were appealing to a goodness not self-evident in nature, but self-evident to men made in the image of their Creator and not dependent upon a "goodness" that is provable by the intellect or subject to the whims of man's intellect.

Moving on, you went into a tyranny of the majority argument when I referenced something about laws that protected the will of the majority. If you go back and reference my post, you'll see that I made metion of the parameters of the Constitution in that some sentence.

Also, I neveer argued that homosexuals were also attracted to opposite sex. I said that most PEOPLE who had engaged in same sex practices were also attracted to the opposite sex. I argued that the percentage of people strictly attracted to the same sex was small as a proportion of pop.

Using your own arguments about legal problems/issues and the quality of environment in rearing children when proscribing polygamy, society has the right to limit marriage in order to assure that most people will conform to the arrangement it thinks best based on the parameters already suggested by you.

As to your reductio ad absurdum argument about hanging all gays in order to promulgate male-female child rearing environment or something or the other:

Don't be a jackass.

>Also, I neveer argued that homosexuals were also attracted to opposite sex. I said that most PEOPLE who had engaged in same sex practices were also attracted to the opposite sex.

Wow Cecelia, I think you might have taken the cake with that post. Do you even realize those two lines together mean you think that most people who have engaged in 'same sex practices' are not gay?

Paraphrase:

A majority (that's what MOST means) of people who have engaged in homosexual acts are also attracted to the opposite sex, yet you say you don't feel that homosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Ergo, the majority of people who engage in sex with their own gender are NOT GAY.

That's an interesting conclusion...

Care to show us the church literature your stats came from?

You say, "Every tradition has it's share of pre-modern, violent desiderata. That doesn't mean everyone, or even a majority, or even a significant minority is motivated by it today. And when you act like it does, and worse, act like it MUST, you are wrong and wrong in a way that unfortunately makes you a bigot."

Yes, and the Nazis made the trains run on time. Again, this is the sort of thinking that boils down to nothing. It has the sort of veneer of tolerance and equiamanity that's more an effort in self-congratuation and personal image building than logic or intellectual rigor.

To say that all religions have had periods or triumphs that have added to civilization and have had their Dark Ages, is again the sort platitude that is essentially meaningless.

There's a thousand unconsidered questions that are generally left unconsidered depending upon what particular relgion or philosophy is being discussed and the particular holders of that religion, matters regarding colonialism, etc.

Why and how did the West have a period of Enlightment under Christianity and how did Christianity adopt to this period in a way unseen in modern times in the Middle East? What has made Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism and a slew of other faiths amenable to economic progress?

It's not bigoted for Feder or Mason to say that a religion is evil when that religion explicitly teaches that Jews are less than dogs and should be dispersed in all the earth,no matter what that religion accomplished 200 years ago.

I don't call gays "bigoted" when they denounce Christianity in that teaches that their practices are sinful and that they must abstain.

It's not tolerant to mouth the sort assinine pap that you're mouthing. Tolerance lies in allowing people to practice their religion as they will as long as it does not go against the law, and tolerance is to allow the adherents of that religion to teach their children what they believe, even if those beliefs are repugnant to me.

Tolerance is not found in the sort of ....well...there's good and bad in all religions b.s. that you're putting forth.

Again, that's just image-building.

It is not nature that inspires men to protect the weakness, the sickest, the most vulnerable among them...and to know that this is "goodness". Again, we see quite the opposite in nature or in nature's laws.

Wrong again, Cecelia...

It depends what 'nature' you happen to be looking at and when.

With the current crime rates, and the party of personal accountability...

I'd say 'humans' and 'nature' are about neck and neck.

Oh...don't forget war, the dark ages and terrorists and the KKK....

Or are they not 'Human.'

Not all the Founders were deists and deism does not reference nature in the way a scientist or atheist references it. What the Founders did argue is that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator and that they are "self-evident" because he....not nature...has written them on our hearts.

Really? Wow, why didn't they write this? You must be a mind reader.

IS this the King James version of our historic documents?

I picture you with can of spray paint in Philadelphia shamelessly adding and subtracting words to your liking...

Or your religion's liking I should say...

I always thought Self Evident meant 'Self Evident.' You know, meaning I reached the conclusion all by myself.

Not, I read the message inscribed on my heart by a benevolent puppet master...

Laughing My Ass OFF!

...And not at Jeff this Time!

Good Times!

That's an interesting conclusion...

Care to show us the church literature your stats came from?

Posted by: LMAO at April 12, 2007 7:54 PM

My stats come from the fact that the number of straights far surpasses the number of gays.

You might want to rethink any idea that every person who has had any sort of sexual encounter with the same sex or who has been attracted to a particular member of the same sex is therefore a homosexual.

Laughing My Ass OFF!

...And not at Jeff this Time!

Good Times!

Posted by: LMAO at April 12, 2007 8:02 PM

ppsstt....(you're trying too hard)

MOST clear minded people (religious and non-religious alike) agree that our country was founded by people escaping religious and policitcal tyranny. Regardless of their own personal religion, they sought to establish a country free of those trappings.

And they had done a good job until someone thought that inserting 'under god' in the pledge in the 50's would be a good way to rally the troops against 'godless' communism.

Are you one of those simple minded folks who believes reciting something day after day from memory puts holiness in their hearts?

Amen.
Posted by: royalking at April 12, 2007 6:42 PM

The way you two stroke eachother is both sickening and amazing.

Are you two on a chain?

Laughing my ass off!

Laughing My Ass OFF!

...And not at Jeff this Time!

Good Times!

Posted by: LMAO at April 12, 2007 8:02 PM

ppsstt....(you're trying too hard)
Posted by: Cecelia at April 12, 2007 8:06 PM

Actually, I'm barely trying at all...

I could poke holes in your pathetic arguments in my sleep...

And often do!

>My stats come from the fact that the number of straights far surpasses the number of gays.

...And most of them have had sex with the same sex? WTF?

>You might want to rethink any idea that every person who has had any sort of sexual encounter with the same sex or who has been attracted to a particular member of the same sex is therefore a homosexual.
Posted by: at April 12, 2007 8:05 PM

Actually Cecelia, you might want to reread your post. I NEVER assumed anyone who has had sex with the same sex would consider themselves gay. Quite the contrary.

You might want to reconsider your assertion that MOST people who have had sex with the same sex aren't gay.

Sure some aren't, but MOST?

Laughing my ASS OFF!

And barely trying!

Cecelia can't even read and understand her own posts, let alone mine...

We've had this problem in the past, like a good mentor we work through it together...

She must have done well in school though, because after I shove her words in her face for about the 10th time she starts to understand.

One more time Cecelia:

A majority (that's what MOST means) of people who have engaged in homosexual acts are also attracted to the opposite sex, yet you say you don't feel that homosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Ergo, the majority of people who engage in sex with their own gender are NOT GAY.

Read your post. It's your words (and your logic) that is flawed.

Tell me all about gay people Cecelia...

With friends like RoyalQueen I'm sure you're an expert...

Laughing My Ass Off at the Dynamic Duo...

Don't get your hopes up Jeff, she only loves you like a brother. A mentally challenged little brother who she feels she has to defend all the time.

And making 'his self' look pretty darn stupid in the process.

Don't change guys. You two are PRICELESS!!

More than worth the price of admission....

MOST clear minded people (religious and non-religious alike) agree that our country was founded by people escaping religious and policitcal tyranny. Regardless of their own personal religion, they sought to establish a country free of those trappings.

And they had done a good job until someone thought that inserting 'under god' in the pledge in the 50's would be a good way to rally the troops against 'godless' communism.

Are you one of those simple minded folks who believes reciting something day after day from memory puts holiness in their hearts?

Posted by: LMAO at April 12, 2007 8:07 PM
Really, prick?"MOST?" Wrong, again. Ever heard of "In God We Trust?" Get a life.

Don't get your hopes up Jeff, she only loves you like a brother. A mentally challenged little brother who she feels she has to defend all the time.

And making 'his self' look pretty darn stupid in the process.

Don't change guys. You two are PRICELESS!!

More than worth the price of admission....

Posted by: LMAO at April 12, 2007 8:26 PM
Hey, a self-righteous *&$#sucker and he claims to read minds. Pretty good for an OLBYLOON!

Really, prick?"MOST?" Wrong, again. Ever heard of "In God We Trust?" Get a life.
Posted by: royalking at April 12, 2007 8:40 PM

Hey, a self-righteous *&$#sucker and he claims to read minds. Pretty good for an OLBYLOON!
Posted by: royalking at April 12, 2007 8:43 PM

And Cecelia said YOU got Mike's blood boiling...

Sounds like you're about ready to have an aneurism.

Don't die Jeff! Please don't die!

I need you...Don't Go!

Fight it! You can pull through this...

Take some aspirin or something...

Laughing My Ass Off!

c-ser, care to "debunk" my 'In God We Trust" post? Or, keep acting like the ignorant child that you are?

Debunk? What's there to debunk? What are you asserting? That because the Gov't puts 'in god we trust' on our currency that it proves that our founding fathers intended we be enslaved by Christian ideology?

Nice Try! Keep at it! You'll get there Royal Queen.

You just keep looking for stuff that you think proves some sort of simple minded notion that someone has spoon-fed you.

You know where the saying 'Kool Aid Drinkers' came from Jeff? No..? (like I seriously thought you would...)

It came from JonesTown...A religious sect that started out as a bunch of kooky Christians.

Yes, Christian Kool Aid Drinkers...

Care for another Sip?

Too Funny!

Laughing My Ass Off!

I know laughter is good medicine, but man, my side is starting to hurt...

You're too much, really!

Don't change!

Just proving that all you have are childish remarks, even though you know I am right. Except your little religeous slam "enslave." No intelligent remarks from you, just keep on repeating the same ole childish crap. You are a fine example of the lunatic left!

RK,

Thanks, but I am to her what you are to Mike.

Rock on. :D

Thanks, but I am to her what you are to Mike.

Rock on. :D

Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 12:30 AM
lmao is a her? Or vokie?

VOK is the one who's better at math...

former is correct?

"It has the sort of veneer of tolerance and equiamanity that's more an effort in self-congratuation and personal image building than logic or intellectual rigor."

Ya know, given the number of times you trot this cut-n-paste set piece out, you might spend some time editing it. I don't know what equalamanity is, I don't even know what you might be getting at, and I don't congratulate myself on it. Let's review. Mason made a very specific statement here Cecelia, which you are not defending. You simply want to turn it into yet another "tyranny of tolerance" attack the messenger argument. O.K., what am I tolerating here that should not be? Tell me.

"It's not bigoted for Feder or Mason to say that a religion is evil when that religion explicitly teaches that Jews are less than dogs and should be dispersed in all the earth,no matter what that religion accomplished 200 years ago."

Er, it wouldn't be bigoted IF THAT WAS THE CASE. It isn't. Period. Who's butt did you pull that out of? It is no more correct than Christianity explicitly teaches cannibalism or Egyptian genocide, which is a possible interpretation if you are enough of a willfully stupid and mendacious interpreter. But please, go on. Tell us how Islam itself "explicitly" teaches these exact things you just quoted. You have to in order to reestablish your Mensch.

"I don't call gays "bigoted" when they denounce Christianity in that teaches that their practices are sinful and that they must abstain."

O.K., but isn't that statement sort of veneer of tolerance and equiamanity that's more an effort in self-congratuation and personal image building...? Not to mention the fact that not too many homosexuals take that line (I've never heard one). But anyway, kudos on not calling them bigots when they are always saying that around you.

"It's not tolerant to mouth the sort assinine pap that you're mouthing. Tolerance lies in..."

"Assinine pap?" O.K. questioning the "mensch" status of someone who just characterized a whole relgion as "a murderous organization that's out to kill people" is assinine pap. Fine. Anyone so obviously wildly angry at all muslims is a hero to you, I get that. But who the ?@#! started talking about tolerance? Is this the only argument you can deploy no matter what? I am arguing that Mason in his paid public personal acts like a dumb bigot, because he is painting a whole religion full of people into one very very very narrow and inaccurate corner. It isn't a "tolerance" argument. Try to turn that off. I am arguing he is simply and clearly wrong, and wrong in a way that makes him a dumb bigot. It's a simple argument.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show how Islam "explicitly teaches that Jews are less than dogs and should be dispersed in all the earth,no matter what." I guess you are just being hyperbolic, but maybe you really believe this. Your whole argument lionizing the mensch hangs on this. I can't wait to see your Koranic interpretation. This ought to be good.

The Olbermann Watch 'Think Tank' trying to sort out the players on the scorecard before resuming their tired ignorant attacks:

RK,
Thanks, but I am to her what you are to Mike.
Rock on. :D
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 12:30 AM

lmao is a her? Or vokie?
Posted by: royalking at April 13, 2007 1:43 AM

VOK is the one who's better at math...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 1:52 AM

former is correct?
Posted by: royalking at April 13, 2007 2:15 AM

Why doesn't Royal Queen just pick up the phone and call Cecelia so they can make sure they wear the same dress today...That way they can tell who's team everyone is on...

Hilarious!

Still Laughing My Ass Off!

"However, there is nothing in nature or the laws of nature that endows men their rights, that gives PROOF that the rights of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, exist at all or that they are "good" in any sense. Quite the contrary. If you can show me otherwise I will be glad to the point of giddiness."

This is simply delving too deep, but I am arguing that the founders relied on just such a natural endowment, as outlined by Hobbes and amended by Locke and Rousseau. The "state of nature" philosophers on whom the American project were founded are very conspicuously deity-free for their time, as is the DOI and constitution. They really really are.

"It is not nature that inspires men to protect the weakness, the sickest, the most vulnerable among them...and to know that this is "goodness". Again, we see quite the opposite in nature or in nature's laws."

Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think with Rousseau that human nature does have a kind of natural goodness that does inspire men to do just what you say. Think about how adults relate to babies, for instance, truly the weakest, sickest, most vulnerable. I don't think there needs to be any special command from heaven for this to be so.

But that is really aside from the point. The American project does not really address the weakest, sickest, etc. at all. It tries to protect minorities because majority faction means either the destruction of freedom or civil society alltogether. It is a very pragmatic kind of consideration. It is definitely not a religous kind of idealism.

As to the "god wrote it on our heart" thing to excuse the self-evident thing...well fine. But if he wrote what is self evident on our heart, what is the status of what he wrote in the book, which is the heart of the Christian religion? And what would be the difference between the things "written on our heart" and the things discoverable by reason?

>Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think with Rousseau that human nature does have a kind of natural goodness that does inspire men to do just what you say. Think about how adults relate to babies, for instance, truly the weakest, sickest, most vulnerable. I don't think there needs to be any special command from heaven for this to be so.

Furthermore, there are numerous studies that show Infants have a naturally altruistic nature. The studies showed that when infants understand what someone is trying to do (i.e. pick up something, etc) and exhibit trouble doing it (i.e. not being able to grab it) the infants invariably rush to help in any way they can.

All this BEFORE religion and/or society tells them to.

Cecelia could argue that that's just the hand of God swooping in to help in the form of the infant, but Me and everyone else that doesn't live in a demon-haunted world would vehemently disagree.

And we have that little inconvenient thing called science on our side...

Well, not to defend the ever valiant Cecelia, but I don't think her argument would be quite as silly as that. I don't even think she is religious, and in any event I don't think anyone can really plumb the depths of these questions. I merely suggest that the idea that our 'better natures' must come from a sentient or Christian god is not something the founders believed or meant to be engrained in our republic. This is a line of revisionism that has been basically bought and paid for by the Christianist movement that wishes America to declare itself a "Christian" state (notwithstanding the oxymoron.)

"I like Joker, Brandon, Royalking because they're funny and interesting too, as I do several even more in-your-face leftwing posters here."

Awesome!!! Pow Pow!!! Asked and answered.

An aside: Cecelia, how did you ever come to Olbermannwatch in the first place. Were you here from the very start?

>Well, not to defend the ever valiant Cecelia, but I don't think her argument would be quite as silly as that.

You'll have to take my word for this one VOK, it is. I'm not sure if you've taken a stroll through the archives and read some of her posts, but you might just be 'misunderestimating' her.

Yesterday she was claiming that a majority of people who engage in homosexual acts aren't in fact homosexual. Not 'some' but most.

It may not have been what she meant, but it's what she wrote, and then she stood by it.

>I merely suggest that the idea that our 'better natures' must come from a sentient or Christian god is not something the founders believed or meant to be engrained in our republic. This is a line of revisionism that has been basically bought and paid for by the Christianist movement that wishes America to declare itself a "Christian" state (notwithstanding the oxymoron.)

Amen to that!

VOK,

Well, it's interesting that in a debate that started out with your claim that it is essentially tryannical or nondemocratic for like-minded religioius groups to ban together to lobby for law based on a religious appeal, to see you now arguing for the silliest sort of relativism when it comes to people forming personal opinions about individual creeds and philosophies. That it's somehow the stuff of bigotry to label an entire religious as being "bad" or inspiring "evil".

That you could count the number of Islamic democracies on one hand and still have enough fingers left to play Moonlight Sonata and that though all its adherents do not want jihad is something different from "is there something within Islam that makes for jihadists and Islamic tyrannies, is now stuff to be waved away while platitudes like "most Muslims want peace" and "there are nice Muslims in Peoria and London" rule the day.

To argue that people are bigoted to condemn anything because adherents are nice and is to issue a wholesell condemnation of people's opinion based upon the most cursory and silliest lines of reasoning, especially when it comes to people whose family and friends are being effected by what is taught in madrassas, or what is taught by the Pope. But a defense of those folks is tantamount to being "mad" at Muslims.

That's not self-congratulatory, it's commonsense that if a religion or philosophy goes against the principles you believe and or its adherent teach things threateing to your way of life, you don't have put "but most Muslims/Christians are peaceful" like some posturing and inane e-mail postscript when you're raking them over the coals.

You can however be tolerant to religion in general in that you respect it's place within the type of civil discourse that effects public policy. You can treat adherents of any philosophy or religion with basic civility and in accordance with the law.

Other demands are just pap.

"I like Joker, Brandon, Royalking because they're funny and interesting too, as I do several even more in-your-face leftwing posters here."

Awesome!!! Pow Pow!!! Asked and answered.

An aside: Cecelia, how did you ever come to Olbermannwatch in the first place. Were you here from the very start?

Posted by: VOK at April 13, 2007 2:18 PM

VOK,

I've enjoyed our exchanges as well. I'm so glad you're here.

I found Olbermann Watch after watching Countdown a few times and shouting counterpoints at the tv screen. :D I googled "Keith Olbermann" and thought thank god there's someone taking on this bastard.

I wondered why MSNBC had decided to "simulcast" what essentially is a DNC talk radio program in its primetime, in that there is no alternative arguments allowed or time provide to counter Olbermann's charges and accusations.

Cecelia's Straw Man Hath Risen

But that is really aside from the point. The American project does not really address the weakest, sickest, etc. at all. It tries to protect minorities because majority faction means either the destruction of freedom or civil society alltogether. It is a very pragmatic kind of consideration. It is definitely not a religous kind of idealism.

As to the "god wrote it on our heart" thing to excuse the self-evident thing...well fine. But if he wrote what is self evident on our heart, what is the status of what he wrote in the book, which is the heart of the Christian religion? And what would be the difference between the things "written on our heart" and the things discoverable by reason?

Posted by: VOK at April 13, 2007 1:26 PM

This still doesn't answer my basic point that an appeal to a Creator or even a self-evident "goodness" is stilll an appeal that is not the stuff of reasoning or intellect.

You may call it pragmatic or even the a part of natural law to protect minorities but there's nothing to suggest that it is other than some appeal to a "goodness" outside of what is found in nature and what can be rationally argued.

I have no quarrel with the secular perspective. My interest in this debate is your implication that a religious perspect is somehow less "pragmatic" or intrinsically NOT based upon any rational perspective and thefore tyrannical in nature and an anti-democratic force within policy making.

I wondered why MSNBC had decided to "simulcast" what essentially is a DNC talk radio program in its primetime, in that there is no alternative arguments allowed or time provide to counter Olbermann's charges and accusations.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 2:46 PM

Because Networks are free to do what they want in accordance with federal regulations...

And apparently there's demand. Did you catch bob's chart about how over the last several years his audience has grown considerably?

Talk to the TV very much Cecelia?

Talk to the TV very much Cecelia?

Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 2:58 PM

All the time.

I never found the fact that somone could do something as opposed to should do something very compellling.

I never found the fact that somone could do something as opposed to should do something very compellling.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 3:06 PM

I never found the argument that one person knows what another person 'should' be doing very compelling, either.

You've parked your ass on this site since it's inception, you admit talking to the TV 'all the time', you think most people who've engaged in homosexual acts aren't in fact homosexual...

Are you sure you're the one who should be deciding what others should and shouldn't do?

Priceless!

Your Typo rate is going up again, with your blood pressure...you just see the LMAO in bold on the left margin and you start to get angry.

I'm loving it!

...and Laughing My Ass Off!

(And barely trying!)

I never found the fact that somone could do something as opposed to should do something very compellling.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 3:06 PM

I never found the argument that one person knows what another person 'should' be doing very compelling, either.

You've parked your ass on this site since it's inception, you admit talking to the TV 'all the time', you think most people who've engaged in homosexual acts aren't in fact homosexual...

Are you sure you're the one who should be deciding what others should and shouldn't do?

Priceless!

Your Typo rate is going up again, with your blood pressure...you just see the LMAO in bold on the left margin and you start to get angry.

I'm loving it!

...and Laughing My Ass Off!

(And barely trying!)

Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 3:18 PM

...And then some....

I have doubts about your true enjoyment level, but no one can deny you're trying...

"Well, it's interesting that in a debate that started out with your claim that it is essentially tryannical or nondemocratic for like-minded religioius groups to ban together to lobby for law based on a religious appeal..."

First, these were two separate discussions you are combining, though there is a thread that connects them. Second, I never claimed such a thing at all in either context. I said un-American, in the founding sense of what is American. Seeking to project religious dictates into the state is, by my understanding of the founding, un-American in exactly the same way that agitating for communism is un-American. It is legally permitted antagonism to what we stand for. And the Iranian nut wants to take advantage of, and ally with that un-American behavior. I understand you think differently about the founders and founding, centering on your belief that they thought there was no standard of the good outside of god. I think that is wrong, as I will address in the follow up, but not illogical or kooky.

But again,
"essentially tryannical" No.
"nondemocratic" No. Didn't say it, don't mean it.
Un-American. I stand by that.
----------

"That it's somehow the stuff of bigotry to label an entire religious as being "bad" or inspiring "evil".

Somehow???!! Somehow????! It's practically the definition of bigoty. Unless, of course, you want to go ahead and show how Islam itself really says Jews are worse than dogs, only talks and teaches murder, and that other ill-informed broad-brush garbagio you and menschy came out with. Are you dropping that line of inquiry? I would if I was you.

"To argue that people are bigoted to condemn anything because adherents are nice and is to issue a wholesell condemnation of people's opinion based upon the most cursory and silliest lines of reasoning,"

O.K. Who argued that? Are you responding to someone else? This is confusing. What is this straw doing here? I argued that if you are
A. wrong, and
B. using your error to tar a whole class of people
then you are a bigot. Is bigotry anything? You are not only not addressing this argument, you are somehow standing up for the idea that all one need to excuse any kind of error and violent hyperbole is a heapin' helpin' of righteous indignation and rational fear. Menschy is afraid? Menschy is angry? So what? So are the terrorists. That's not a moral argument.

Flat out, menschy said something that is plain not true. And you did too. The tennants of Islam do not state that Jews are worse than dogs, that they should be scattered to the ends of the earth, that you should murder everyone and support terrorists. Wrong. Bad. Bad Cecelia. Bad Menschy. Bad because you are leading the effort to confront our enemies astray and playing right into their bloodstained hands. They want religious war, and you want to give it to them. Which is stupid.

Well of course that sort of teaching about Jews is going on in madrassas right now.

Are charges of bigotry valid if the critic is an atheist and speaking on world religions or a particular religion? If Mason is not a practicing Jew or practicing anything, would he still qualify as a bigot?

But the most interesting aspect of this discussion is in all the hyperbole you've issued to characterize my argument, is the notion that such "bigotry" foments religious war.

Is this the case with words spoken against the religion of Christianity as well, or does it just apply to Islam? If that is the case, why?

Here's just a cursory view of some historical fomentors of religious wars, easy found by google:

"Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror."

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."

Voltaire

"The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice: the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit; it is at the same time subjection, a self-derision, and self-mutilation."

Nietzsche

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." Tom Paine

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."
"When I hear a man is religious, I conclude that he is a rascal, although I have known some instances of very good men being religious."

Hume

>I have doubts about your true enjoyment level, but no one can deny you're trying...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 3:28 PM

You're projecting again Cecelia, it's obvious you're the one who's not having any fun.

It's your sanctuary I've invaded and made a mockery of...

You're the one that's been here since the site's inception...

You're the one that takes it all so painfully serious...

and I'm the one...

Laughing My Ass Off!

Too Funny!

I would say 'don't change' but I know you won't, thank God!

Jeff's the one who licks his finger and sticks it in the air to see which way the site's proverbial wind is blowing...

You're just one of the ones that does the blowing...

Prrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Too funny!

It's your sanctuary I've invaded and made a mockery of...

You're the one that's been here since the site's inception...

You're the one that takes it all so painfully serious...

and I'm the one...

Laughing My Ass Off!

Too Funny!

Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 5:27 PM

So you tell me, though there's an innate contradiction in this spiel....

"and I'm the one...

Laughing My Ass Off!

Too Funny!

Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 5:27 "

Yes, and your readers ascertain that.... because you proclaim it so much...

Yes, and your readers ascertain that.... because you proclaim it so much...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 5:42 PM

Wow! I've got readers?

I thought it was just me and you Cecelia...

That's why I repeat myself so much. Sometimes you just don't get it the first half dozen times.

...And of course it looks like twice as much when you repeat everything I say...

...And of course it looks like twice as much when you repeat everything I say...

Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 6:02 PM

hahaha! Yeah, it's a plot to double the impact of your repetitive proclamations of your own laughter....

No Plot, Just the Facts...

I know how y'all like to deal in 'facts' here at OW.

You can repeat anything I say however often you like Cecelia...It's about the only time you make any sense. You live vicariously through KO, why not live vicariously though me as well...

Too Funny!

Still Laughing!

"Well of course that sort of teaching about Jews is going on in madrassas right now."

Your point?? You've really wound this down to nothing. "Well some Islamist is preaching it somewhere, so why not just color the whole religion by that. That isn't bigotry!" It isn't?? News to me. I think it is the very definition.

"Are charges of bigotry valid if the critic is an atheist and speaking on world religions or a particular religion? If Mason is not a practicing Jew or practicing anything, would he still qualify as a bigot?"

Sure. Of course. I'm starting to think I just don't understand how you think about this at all if you think there would be another answer there. Maybe it's a bit more alarming when it is sect vs. sect, since that is the a traditional origin of group violence, but secular v. religious can have it's bigotry too. I think the classic bigot though cites the actions or qualities of a small subset of a group and then applies that to a much larger group. That is why menschy qualifies most especially. He's taking the actions of a tiny minority who are terrorists and reverse reading them into a whole group and whole religion.

I'll respond to your potential instance of bigotry as derived from your particular quotes there:

Voltaire: Biggot -- no problem there.

Nietzsce: Biggot, but jeeze, come on...it's Nietzsche. To call him a biggot seems almost complimentary in it's mildness. He would be disppointed that is all we say about him.

Paine: Ahnh...hmmmm.....borderline. Certainly not anti-Christian biggotry, since he is pretty clearly trying to go after just the old testament. And he doesn't really pin it to any particular religion either...so borderline. Also a bit instructive in the other debate about the founding.

Hume: Mmmmm....I go with mild biggot, although anti-every-religion is so broad and includes such a supermajority that it is kind of a stretch to call it "biggotry." It isn't applying the actions of the few to the many.

As another Cecelia-sketching aside, do you consider yourself a religious person?

WEEKEND!!!

Too Funny!

Still Laughing!

Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 6:56 PM

Yes, we see the facts.