If You Have To Ask....

[filkertom]

Pope Benedict "is very upset" that Muslims took offense by his invoking a 14th-century speech calling the works of Mohammed "evil and inhuman".

The Only President We've Got finds comments against torture "unacceptable" and wants "clarity" regarding the Geneva Conventions' ban against "outrages against human dignity".

What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

You evil, sanctimonious motherfuckers.

With all of the works of Catholicism to pull from, Emperor Popetine grabs one insulting a billion people and then sends out a spokesflunky to tell everyone how the Pontiff is "very upset that some parts of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibility of the Muslim faithful and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond at all to his intentions". In what other way, I'm curious, were those remarks supposed to be interpreted?

Chimpy McShithead wants to find the "acceptable" legal limits to his torture program.

Answer to both question: There is none.

And this pushing of the limits, this utter willingness to tear down the boundaries of civilization we've spent thousands of years putting up so we don't spend all our time trying to slaughter each other in righteous rage, is something which the "leaders" of the world do with increasing frequency.

News flash to Pope Bennie: The world communicates instantly these days. If you say something stupid, everybody knows really fast. And, given the religious tensions in the world since, oh, say, the 14th century, going back literally hundreds of years to demonize one-sixth of the earth's population may not be the brightest move. Following up by saying how upset you are about it is just a smack in the face. Having an underling deliver that message is worse than cowardice.

This is what comes from playing My God's Bigger Than Your God. Earlier this week I saw a comment at Eschaton I agree with strongly, the gist of which is Religious tension is a fight over who's got the better imaginary friend.

And, hey, Chimpy: I suspect that you're having such a difficult time with that provision of Geneva because, well, you have no human dignity. None. You were a spoiled silver-spoon brat who made it on your family name and connections, a binge drinker twenty years past your frat days, an inept CEO who ran an oil company and a baseball team into the ground (but managed to make tidy profits for yourself), a clumsy and mean governor who messed up your educational system and economy and enjoyed putting people to death, and now you've been sharing that magic touch with the whole country for six years, with predictable results.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the idea of "outrages upon human dignity". I am slightly surprised that Darth Cheney and Karl let you say it out loud.

Torture is wrong on every level. It's the wrong thing to do morally and ethically. It doesn't work -- tortured people will tell you what you want to hear, rather than, y'know, the truth. Torture endangers our troops -- if we torture the bad guys, they'll be more inclined to torture our guys, because, hey, what have they got to lose?

And you can't find the "clarity" in that.

Impeachment is too good for you, Dubya. I won't be happy until you take up permanent residence in the Hague.

Comments

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

Religious tension is a fight over who's got the better imaginary friend.

Ah, yes, the bigger dick theory of religion. Goes right along with the bigger dick theory of war.

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

*CLAP CLAP CLAP* Well Said.

The problem is, and its not a problem with you, its EVERYONE ELSE it that you're just stating the obvious.

All of this could be obvious to even the most casual viewer.

But we've gotten so use to our leaders verbal flappings that the majority of the people are drowing in the blah blah blah and not hearing it anymore.

[skyringer.livejournal.com]

Aye, I remember George Carlin's rant well on the Bigger Dick theory.

Benedict makes my skin crawl. Absolutely gives me the chills - if there was ever a child molester in the Catholic hierarchy, those eyes belong to a big 'un.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

With regard to the Pope's (("Emperor Popetine" -- *sputterchortlesnort*)) comments, to my mind he was closer to the truth than the meant to be. He just missed the point that Islam is not meaningfully, if any, worse than Christianity or any other religion that sets up individual people with the authority to say "you do what I tell you or you go to hell; you can't argue with me because I speak for God". Individual spirituality is not a bad thing, nor are individual thought-based ethics informed (but not dictated) by the lessons and examples of people like Jesus or St. Francis. What's bad is when religion becomes organized and starts pandering to the desire of most humans to give them simple answers that spare them the trouble of thinking. That inevitably leads to the priest changing from a spiritual guide into a temporal leader, with absolute power that corrupts as absolutely as any other absolute power.

On the torture issue -- I'm enough of a political realist that I'd be willing to support torture in some cases if I thought it actually worked. I don't think that the programs we're complaining about do work. But even if the torture was working, if it got accurate information about other terrorists and plots in a more timely fashion than more humane methods, the information could never be used in any kind of court proceeding. It *must* be the official policy of the United States that we don't condone anything that any reasonable person would call torture. If we get caught using it, we have to be publicly embarrassed, show contrition, and prosecute the people who did it. The President saying to the whole world, with pride, that it's his policy to use torture may well do more damage to America than anything else he's done. Beyond the monumental hypocrisy and the contempt it shows for other people's sensibilities, it demonstrates either a profound lack of understanding of how the world works, or a genuine intent to destroy our country.

[technocracygirl.livejournal.com]

Hey, Catholic Church? This isn't the 1100's. Muslims get pissed off right quick when you stat talking about hem like they're inhuman and such. And Popetine, (best nickname for him ever, BTW!), sweetie, honey-child, there may still be a slew of Catholics in the world. But you try asking them to go on or fund a Crusade, and you're looking at a lot of people studiously looking the other way or putting their fingers in their ears when you talk. How many American Catholics use birth control, after all?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

See, Phil, I understand what you're saying re: torture... but I disagree strongly on the idea of ever supporting torture. But I think I've figured out why I feel that way, in contrast with why (at least) Dubya feels that way.

My goal is to stop the war. To work, in fact, for peace.

His goal is "winning the war on terror", an open-ended slogan without an actual stated goal. No plan. No direction. No end.

And, if he can help it, no responsibility.

Demanding your prisoner tell you the plans so you can kill his buddies is a far cry from asking for the plans so you can stop the whole battle and avoid bloodshed.

Chimpy and his team want war. Lots and lots of war. That they don't have to fight. That they can profit from.

I'd like the war, the wars, to end. Nobody dying; nobody suffering. The fact that this point of view is considered by some to be treasonous shows how far we have fallen... or, more precisely, have been dragged by BushCo. And the bottom ain't in sight yet.

Conspiracy Theory! Get Your Fresh Conspiracy Theory!

[blueeyedtigress.livejournal.com]

I recall when Bennie was elected, a lot of talk in the media about his being a short-term pope and possibly abdicating like a previous Benedict had done. Except that the immediately-previous Benedict (XV who reigned during WWI) was known as a spokesman for peace, and didn't abdicate. Benedict the IX did abdicate (possibly to marry, selling his position to his godfather for a consideration in gold), but then he returned, reigning as pope a total of three separate times. My point is, there was confusion about details the press was fed at the current Pope's induction. There was no short-term pope named Benedict who reigned two years and abdicated, as the press said several times within my hearing.

What if (here's your conspiracy theory, courtesy of no-coffee-yet) what if Pope Bennie's handlers are setting him up for assassination by Muslim factions, whereupon they can declare a modern Crusade to avenge him, and mark his memory? March upon Jerusalem and "take it back for the Christians (read: Roman Catholics)"? I mean, never mind that it's a holy city to three major World Religions ...

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

The Hague would be nice, but...

I'm not a religious man, but there are times when belief makes a lot of sense to me. For example, right now, it would be a source of great solace to know in my heart that Bush will burn in hell for eternity. A lifetime in jail just doesn't cut it for the depth of human suffering this imbecile has caused.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

One wonders what the Catholic Church would look like today had John Paul I lived. I might yet be a Catholic today.

The problem with Papa Ratzi is that he's a church politician far more than a church pastor, and that his swing to conservative Catholicism came out of politics rather than faith. Until the late 1960s, he was a reformer, an ally of liberal theologian Fr. Hans Küng, and one of the players at Vatican II. The rise of the political Left in the German student movement of the late 60s—and, disturbingly, the rise of the German gay rights movement—are what pushed him away from the center and center-left.

Surprisingly, for someone who's been at the center of Vatican activity for as long as he has, I think part of the problem is that it's still only just sinking in to him that he really is the Pope. I remember watching his installation Mass, and the stunned look on his face when he came outside and the crowds began cheering, my comment was, "It just sank in." Well, maybe not. To Vatican watchers and students of Church theology, he wasn't unknown, but Joe Average can generally only name their local priest, the bishop of their diocese and the current Pope. "Vice-popes" are below the radar, and I don't think he's fully realized just how different a stage he's playing on as Benedict XVI than he did as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Seeing it, after all, is not the same as being it.

I'm not saying that to defend the comments... just that I'm not surprised.

As for Dumbass... you can't have expected any different.

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

Umm....the problem here (as I see it) is that people, especially the "devout faithful" (0), will go to Crusade for Popetine. Look how blindly these people follow politicians.

And before you say "People aren't that stupid!" I suggest you stop and think about how stupid they have become for those that are in power to be there.

Stupid or uninformed the result is the same - fanatics to what little data they deem true. And that's the making for a dandy group of "Knights of the Lord".

So who are the good guys?

[capplor.livejournal.com]

What I see here are two people with absolutely no sense of just how much power they are actually wielding. If they were two guys sitting over a couple of brews & saying these things it would be laughable. & probably would make a great cartoon.

But, as two of the most powerful white guys in the world?

The 14th Century was a time when the Catholic Church was almost literally fighting for its very survival. At that time it was politic & expedient for the pope to speak roundly against an easily perceived foe. That was the epoch which saw the creation of the inquisition; which organization seems to nicely tie our two beer slammers together. If Popetine (I might just want to keep that bit of silliness) is still living in the 14th Century then it shouldn't be any wonder that folks is leaving the Church in a steady & growing stream.

Clueless George avoided Viet-Nam by ducking out of the National Guard. His business record, as shoddy and readily available as it may be, indicates that he has never understood that the universe does not revolve around him. It was his generation, which is sadly also mine, which used torture in Viet-Nam to "interrogate" prisoners. The absolute flip-side to the "flower Power" movement.

I find it interesting that these people are saying these things at this time. Sort of in the sense of that old Chinese curse. We ARE living in interesting times.

I wish to go on record (again) as saying I didn't vote for either of them, nor their daddies neither. I've never been Catholic & rarely more pleased with that fact, and am more pleased than you can guess that the Catholic clergy is a self imposed biological dead-end. Wish to remind these folks about Jesus' parable of the vineyard (read it, insert clergy in the place of husbandmen) & I wish that King George will be reminded of what America did with the last George III we had to deal with.

And finally I wish to tell the world: If you want to shoot him I won't stop you, but go for the whole infestation at once, please.

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

(0) By "devout faithful" I mean the people that blindly follow without thought or intelligence. The "faith blind". Not those that choose to follow intelligently.

I can respect someone who actively chooses to follow to the exclusion of all else - but only if they can prove to me that they can think. Few of the "devout faithful" have been able to prove that to my satisfaction.

Re: So who are the good guys?

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Well, no-one's registered nukethewhitehouse.com yet.

[capplor.livejournal.com]

(ttto "I want a girl": play on your ukulele)
He wants a war just like the war
That made his daddy rich.

Is it time to drag out my old "Real patriots wage peace" T-Shirt?

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

Strangely enough, I haven't heard any Muslims complain when their frothing at the mouth, rabid idiots state that the rest of the world is inhuman.

Re: Conspiracy Theory! Get Your Fresh Conspiracy Theory!

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

Historical sites, museums, five thousand years of history, blah blah blah ... but I wonder how much world tension would be solved if Jerusalem was just wiped out by a big ol' meteor.

On the one hand, saner heads might be idly reminded of a parent who, seeing two siblings fighting too angrily over a toy, decides to simply take the toy and throw it away to end the fight.

On the other hand, I can easily imagine the leader of the nutcase faction of each religion demanding immediate world war because "of course" it had to be something the other leaders of the respective nutcase factions that triggered God's wrath.

Scientists, meanwhile, would probably mention something about collisions with comets and be shouted down by all parties concerned, leading to the teaching of intelligent falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) in Kansas.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I'd love to actually stop war, but again, I'm a realist. Progress toward a more ethical world comes from people gradually getting a little better; the ones who try to jump to perfection get killed by the barbarians. Martyrs, yes, but still dead. War is never a good option, but sometimes it is necessary. That's why I don't come out against war in general.

I think the reason Bush is so pro-torture is not just that he likes war and you don't. I think it's his core hypocrisy. He fundamentally doesn't get it that other countries and their citizens don't think that America and Americans are God's Chosen Who Can Do No Wrong and resent his calculus that their lives are unimportant compared to ours. If Iran captured some Americans and treated them the way we treat these so-called enemy combatants, he'd drop the Bomb on Teheran, but his world view is so twisted that he just doesn't understand why those evil Muslims get upset when he does it to them.

NO VIOLENCE

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I can't stress this enough: No death wishes, no idle speculation, no hopes they get [verb]ed by a [adjective] [noun]. It is wrong to wish another person hurt or killed, no matter how vile they are. Shit, I want Osama bin Laden captured and dropped in a nice clean hole for a few decades. Let him rant to the roaches.

And, it is illegal to threaten the life of the president, and you know we are being watched. Haphazardly, most likely incompetently, but you never know what data point will filter out.

Re: So who are the good guys?

[capplor.livejournal.com]

Sheeoot. And he's the "MILD" half of this jointly-held account.

A Point....

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Never said I was against war. I'm certainly against the war in Iraq, and any action Chimpy takes in Iran or North Korea. I think the war in Afghanistan has been botched horribly, and we'll be dealing with that for a decade or two.

I also think you're missing something: There has been a lot of gradual progress in peace over the past fifty years. The problem is this aberrant administration that decided to regress to frickin' feudal times, and then try to justify it retroactively. A lot of people follow along because, gosh, he's the President. He wouldn't say somethin' if it weren't so. Surprise.

Re: A Point....

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I seem to have misread your earlier comment; I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Probably the biggest reason I'm upset about the mess he got us into in Iraq is specifically because of the real threats of North Korea and Iran. We ignored NK when we went to invade Iraq, and apparently Shrub's policy is to continue to ignore them except for a little posturing until they actually nuke us. And Iran scares me a lot more than Iraq did -- principally because they believe that we're so bogged down in Iraq that we can't do anything to them but talk, and they're not afraid of talk. I think that keeping a country whose national slogan is Death To America from getting the bomb *is* a legitimate reason for war, if nothing else works. And it's patently obvious that the only reason Iran wants a nuclear program is so they can get the bomb. *Maybe* they only want to have it so they'd be respected and they wouldn't actually use it -- but I think it would be treasonous to count on it.

The biggest reason that the idea of Bush attacking Iran scares me is that I'm afraid his buddies would do as bad a job as they did in Iraq. At this point, he's done so much damage to our military that I'm not sure we have the capability of doing it right.

Don't get me wrong; I'm willing to negotiate, and if Bush weren't just as much of an inflexible ideologue as Ahmadinejad, it might just do some good. But Iran with the bomb is an existential threat to the United States that Saddam's Iraq never could have been even if all of Bush's lies were true.

[madmanotl.livejournal.com]

As George Carlin said: We could solve most of the problems in the world in a few generations if we just abolish religion. Of course, we don't have time for practical solutions.

I look upon religious people the same way others look at a 5 year old talking about Santa Claus. They both believe that if you are nice you get a gift and others will help promote that belief as much as possible. I am so glad I was able to look at my Catholic belief and decide that it was just a bunch of crap 20 years ago.

I don't tell others that it is garbage. I ask others to examine their belief and those who lead them with an open mind and then decide. I have met too many people who are too afraid to do that.

Re: A Point....

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Roger on all that. Although I tend to agree with the experts who say Iran is still several years away from the Bomb, and I don't think Iran can become that much of an existential threat. Over a long-term period of worldwide retribution, perhaps, or if we nuked it and then Russia and China retaliated (not impossible).

It occurred to me...

[louisadkins.livejournal.com]

I think I just realized one of the reasons that the current admin is being so idiotic regarding 'The Wars' - if they let them end, and people come down from where this has put them, they have to deal with the consequences. I believe they may be looking at this as a mess to hand over to the next admin specifically to avoid having to pay those particular dues to the public, or the world. While this is not the most accurate or concepts, I think it might be what they are running with. Funny thing, I've thought about all of this in parts, but not in this particular order. Must be my brain waking up for the day, or something.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

If it would be a source of solace to know that anyone would burn in Hell for eternity then you have a problem friend. That said person would (and will) be judged, and receive that which is coming to him... fair 'nuff. But be aware that no-one is excluded from the possibility of mercy and even (believe it, bro!) redemption. Eternity is a long long time. You really hate someone that much as to wish them eternal damnation?
Mighty corrosive emotion, hate. Damages the giver more than the receptor.