On Islamofascism, George Eliot Gets Got It
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Newsweek ran a cover study asking, “Why Do they Hate Us?” as if the cause of animosity to the United States lay in the object not the subject. They could use the very logic of that question to determine that gay-bashers are not to blame for attacking gay people because the fault lies not in their actions, but in our attitudes.
It seems hard for some on the left to grasp that hatred can often exist independently of the reviled object. It can be a product of the mind of the hater–or the ideology to which he subscribes. But, some wish to believe that the U.S. is responsible for all manner of ills around the world, including violence directed against our nations, its institutions and its citizens.
Writing 144 years before 9/11, the greatest English novelist of the Victorian Age, got what all too many leftists, blinded by their ideology, refuse to grasp. In “Janet’s Repentance,” the third of three stories in her 1857 collection, Scenes of Clerical Life, George Eliot offers this about an abusive husband:
Cruelty, like very other vice, requires no motive outside itself–it only requires opportunity. You do not suppose Dempster had any motive for drinking beyond the craving for drink; the presence of brandy was the only necessary condition. And an unloving, tyrannous, brutal man needs no motive to prompt his cruelty; he needs only the perpetual presence of a woman he can call his own. A whole park full of tame or timid-eyed animals to torment at his will would not serve him so well to glut his lust of torture; they could not feel as one woman does; they could not throw out the keen retort which whets the age of hatred.
Emphasis added.
Just as the cruel husband needed no motive to abuse his wife, so do terrorists need no motive to commit atrocities against civilians. Those who wish to blame America for the terrorist attacks against us are akin to those who would blame a battered wife for her husband’s abuse.
55 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Damn, that’s good writing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - June 23, 2009
I would say exactly the same thing about the gay community as you/Eliot say about Islamofascism. I think that the drugs/STDs/multiple partners, etc. are all symptoms of a toxic, heartless system which kills people. I’ve often felt like the battered wife trying to report an abusive husband only to hear, “He’s doing his best and he really loves you. You need to support him.”
Islamofascism, the gay community, Christian fundamentalism are all of piece, IMHO. They are places where people with weak identities try to build up their self-esteem through extreme conformism. And they are violent against those who disagree with them. The difference between Prop 8 protests and terrorism is just one of degree–and that degree is even in question when reading radical gay spokesmen.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 23, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - June 23, 2009
Umm… there is a difference. I admit it’s not a different that invalidates your point altogether, but let’s say it invalidates your hyperbole: the second two don’t plan on murdering masses of civilians in order to take over the whole world.
Umm, even the worst Prop 8 protests (which I condemned, and hereby condemn again) don’t plan on murdering masses of civilians in order to take over the whole world. Even the Prop 8 white-powder-mailings were, while terroristic in intent (designed to instill a moment of fear), fake. That’s a pretty huge degree.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - June 23, 2009
The Gays do want everyone in the world to bow to their vision of what equality means. They are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. And masses of innocent people die as a result of their actions. I’m sorry–what’s that difference again?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 23, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - June 23, 2009
I don’t.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - June 23, 2009
Killing masses of civilians. You know, in an effort to *actually* take over the whole world. (As opposed to merely having themselves be a group to reckon with in the cultural marketplace.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - June 23, 2009
I agree w/ #1 — that’s some good writing – on your part and George Eliot’s. Off to the library….
Comment by Jay — June 23, 2009 @ 9:13 pm - June 23, 2009
So, knowingly practicing unsafe sex, encouraging drug use, and exploiting young people leading them to suicide–this is somehow not killing masses of innocent people? All in the name of trying to promote an ideology? Saying, “Well, all gays aren’t like that” is sort of like saying “All Muslims aren’t Islamofascists.” Does that make Islamofascism less of a problem? Why should I support a community where a large visible element is killing lots of innocent people–whether in the name of Islam or in the name of sexual freedom? Both the Islamofascists and gays are angry at a society that they think is oppressive and they want to undermine that society (see “gay marriage”) in favor of what they believe is a better value system. And innocent people die in the process. So–why is Islamofascism worse than the gay community?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 23, 2009 @ 11:52 pm - June 23, 2009
The same can be said for CAFE standards, Socialist health care, etc. and how many millions have been killed just so we “respect” a woman’s right to infanticide?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 24, 2009 @ 1:25 am - June 24, 2009
careful, commenters, your extremism is showing.
Comment by bob (aka boob, littleletter person, etc.) — June 24, 2009 @ 6:52 am - June 24, 2009
Dan, I get your point. But I don’t think the point of the Newsweek headline was to blame the victim, but try to understand the motive behind the hate. As Eliot suggests, there may be no motive, just opportunity. But the fact is that Islamofascists have the U.S. as one of their specific targets. It doesn’t mean we have to change, except in determining the best way to deal with this scum. I would also be curious to figure out why they hate themselves, or their fellow people, as well.
I would say exactly the same thing about the gay community as you/Eliot say about Islamofascism. I think that the drugs/STDs/multiple partners, etc. are all symptoms of a toxic, heartless system which kills people…And they are violent against those who disagree with them.
Ashpenaz, where do you meet all these gay people? I thought it wasn’t like that in “flyover” states. I live in an east coast state, and I just don’t run into these people.
So, knowingly practicing unsafe sex, encouraging drug use, and exploiting young people leading them to suicide–this is somehow not killing masses of innocent people?
If by young, you mean under 18, I’m sort of with you. Obviously, in that case, we are talking about innocent persons. However, this is a type of crime that is not limited to a small minority in the gay community, but unfortunately, in most of other communities.
As for unsafe sex and encouraging drugs, yes, that’s bad too. But again, this is not limited to just the gay community, unfortunately. In fact, I live near a community where unsafe sex and drugs happen so often, it makes the gay community look like prudes. And besides the results that we see in the gay community, another result is plenty of children to keep DYFS, our child protective services, quite busy.
As for the gay community being like Islamofascists except for degree. When I was 18, I was an idiot. But I would take being confronted by a drug infested, disease spreading gay person over a terrorist any day. Because as stupid as I was, I knew better to know taking drugs was not a good idea. And I also knew that having sex with a stranger was not a good idea. And even if I did, I knew it was super stupid to not have unprotected sex. I would not have the same luxury with an Islamofascist terrorist. So it’s not a matter of degree, it’s a matter of freedom.
Once you hit 18, there are no innocents with respect to unsafe sex or drugs. If someone offers you drugs or to have unsafe sex, and you don’t say no, then you are just as guilty as the one who offered it. Not quite the same as with an Islamofascist, where you don’t have the opportunity to say, “you know what, I really don’t want to be killed or tortured by you today.”
As for young gay people committing suicide, I don’t know the stats, but I’m thinking that more of them commit suicide because they were shamed by their parents, friends, and/or (straight) communities into believing they are not worthy of life, than by exploitive gay persons. So should we equate parents who excoriate their gay teen children for being gay with Islamofascists? You would have more of a case, but I would still strongly disagree.
Comment by Pat — June 24, 2009 @ 7:01 am - June 24, 2009
I don’t disagree with Eliot as far as what she’s written, but I disagree with your caricature and with the application of her writing to violent Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalists do not commit crimes merely out of opportunity and its brand of Islam is not alcohol in the same way that religion is an opiate, as some have described it. Yes, they hate — but they are dedicated to a cause, to principles, to fundamentals. Eliot is discussing a man without motive, which assuredly does not apply to those whose motives, however incomprehensible to some, are to themselves perfectly clear and whose irrationality is in large measure the motive. This is exactly what is so frightening about our Muslim enemies; their madness is a calculated dedication to killing as a religious precept, their violence is not a random lashing out — it is taught, not only as folk superstition but as a fully committed branch of a world religion. It is precisely the motive that must be addressed.
Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2009 @ 8:30 am - June 24, 2009
So, Pat, I’m not really being battered, and I should support my abusive husband?
I would say that the person who knowingly practices unsafe sex is equivalent to a suicide bomber–he’s going to die anyway, and he takes innocent people with him. Sometimes, they know he has a bomb ticking away on his body, sometimes they don’t.
It’s still exploitation no matter the age. David Letterman’s comment about Bristol (“Hey, I meant the 18-year old”) is still reprehensible and creepy.
Many gay teens and twenty-somethings commit suicide because they have been exploited sexually by older men. Saying they were old enough to know better is like saying to date-rape victim, “Hey, you were asking for it with your miniskirt and tank-top.” Are we going back to the old “You should have fought back” and “You really enjoyed it” answer to rape victims now? Whenever you exploit someone’s ignorance and lack of experience in order to have sex with them, you are raping them. Again, the fact that “straight people do it, too,” is like excusing Islamofascism because a certain amount of Christians also bomb people.
Encouraging people to take drugs is like encouraging someone to strap a bomb on his body. You know he’s going to destroy himself and lot of other people as a result.
I still think that the gay community is just as bad and just as destructive as the Islamofascist community and the STDS and drug and suicide statistics back me up. In fact, I bet more people died last year as the result of involvement in the gay community than as the result of suicide bombs.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 24, 2009 @ 9:47 am - June 24, 2009
Correct. If the people in question are 18 or over, they’re making choices – not “being killed”. And they are *not* innocent of their own choices. It’s called “free will”, Ash – look into it.
Oh, lord! Do you seriously think that those evil GAYZ sit around rubbing their hands and cackling, “I’m gonna go have some Ecstasy now at the circuit part as part of my MASTER PLAN to SPREAD GAYZ IDEOLOGY and TAKE OVER THE WORLD”? – But Islamists, more or less, do that – perhaps omitting the cackling I specified for dramatic effect, etc.
But that isn’t what I said. Let’s review now. You said, “The Gays do want everyone in the world to bow to their vision of what equality means.”. I said, speaking as a gay person, “I don’t.”
No one here is asking you to. (I know I’m not.)
No. Islamists are not “angry at a society that they think is oppressive.” Going back to the point of GPW’s post: They are simply cruel. Going back to one of my longstanding points: They want to make the world submit to them, for specifically religious reasons (not anger). They are part of a religion that, UNLIKE the other religions including Christianity, has had “make the world submit” as part of its founder’s agenda from day 1.
Because, **unlike** Teh Xians or Teh Gheys (which you drew an equivalence between earlier), the Islamists kill masses of civilians in an effort to *actually* make the rest of the world submit to them. It’s not rocket science, Ash – Come on.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 10:09 am - June 24, 2009
That’s a very good point. Socialized medicine kills far more people, worldwide, than (say) drug use among gays. If I were to apply Ash’s logic (which, to be clear, I have disagreed with), it would follow that supporters of socialized medicine are a far worse, more vicious and evil threat than gays could ever be.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 10:20 am - June 24, 2009
Pat, exactly. Except I think that if you don’t say no, you are rather *more* guilty than the one who offered it. (Again assuming 18 or over.)
And you’d be quite wrong. Starting with “he’s going to die anyway” – something that is by NO means even a probable conclusion, much less a foregone conclusion. And continuing with the fact that any 18-or-over who says “yes” to him is guilty of the consequences to themselves (if any).
I love the fudginess of that. How many? If it’s 3, it’s “many”… yet still a 0.001% rate.
Wrong again! Not even close. Most date rape victims, Ash, are PHYSICALLY FORCED in some way – perhaps with the perpetrator disabling them with a date-rape drug.
You seem to have a real problem, Ash, understanding the difference between choice and force. Not only in these issues, but in others that we have discussed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 10:34 am - June 24, 2009
P.S. A little more on the “person who knowingly practices unsafe sex” example – I want to be very clear that if person X has HIV, and *does not tell* their partner who is person Y, then yes, X is guilty and their actions are to be condemned. Y may still bear a lesser guilt, if he *did not ask* his partner’s HIV status. The example presented by Ash omitted such details; it presented a generalized picture of people having unprotected sex. There are many circumstances in which there would be nothing wrong with that and no consequences. For example, serosorting: the partners could have good reason to believe they are both HIV negative, or for that matter, good reason to believe that they are both HIV positive and on the appropriate meds. My comments above were about the non-criminal, general case.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 10:42 am - June 24, 2009
ow–you and Pat are the best apologists for spreading STDs, encouraging drugs, and sexually exploiting young people EVER! The gay community bears absolutely no responsibility for the lives it destroys. I would be the Taliban thinks the exact same thing–and uses the same arguments.
The gay community writing a critique of Islamofascism is like Stalin writing a critique of Mussolini. I love the way gays can see the destructive forces all around them and not see themselves as to blame for anything. They can protest (rightly) the hanging of gays in public, but turn a blind eye to an older guy who infects some twentysomething with AIDS while introducing him to meth. Then they blame the victim. “He was old enough to know better.” And the twentysomething hanging from the crane should have known better than to hold hands with his boyfriend.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 24, 2009 @ 10:43 am - June 24, 2009
The gay community bears absolutely no responsibility for the lives it destroys.
Ash, I mena no offense, but you seem to have very limited view of the “gay community”. It seems like you are focusing on a very urban-centric, glossy-media-fueled culture that many of us (I’m guessing, from what I read on this site) have never really been part of. And that self-indulgent culture is just as bad in the heterosexual community that glorifies vapid, oxygen-thief “celebrities” and disposable relationships. The “gay community” you refer to merely reflects the same ills experienced in the broader society.
And last time I checked, stoned barebackers weren’t blowing up buses full of children. To say the two are the same is to cheapen the lives of the innocent dead.
Comment by Neptune — June 24, 2009 @ 11:23 am - June 24, 2009
Sorry Ash, your comparison is like Obama saying that 6 million Jews and few more million gays and gypsies dying in the Holocaust is the the discomfort of the Palestinians for the last 60 years.
Not buying it. We don’t confront real evil in this world by equating it to lesser deeds.
Comment by Leah — June 24, 2009 @ 11:30 am - June 24, 2009
And you have a limited view of Islamofascism. It seems you are focused on a very radical fringe group which really doesn’t speak for all Islamofascists, most of whom live in the suburbs and working to peacefully change peoples’ minds by adopting highways and volunteering at homeless shelters. The small percentage that uses suicide bombs is a fringe element which doesn’t represent the goals of the movement as a whole. Plus, Christians do the same thing, so you can’t criticize Islamofascists. We’re all just suicide bombers at heart anyway, so you can’t really judge.
No, those stoned barebackers are exploiting the young and killing them with drugs, STDs, and depression. To say they don’t cheapens the innocent dead.
I bet Islamofascists are capable of greater and more honest self-critique than the gay community. I bet there’s a radcial terrorist here and there who says, “Is this suicide bombing thing really working for us?” That’s more than the gay community ever does.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 24, 2009 @ 11:32 am - June 24, 2009
We’re all just suicide bombers at heart anyway, so you can’t really judge.
You lost me there, Ash, sorry. I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean.
Comment by Neptune — June 24, 2009 @ 11:55 am - June 24, 2009
Ok, maybe that’s why ash is a big socialized medicine advocate,
Because he’s waayyy off his medication.
Comment by The Livewire — June 24, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - June 24, 2009
Exactly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - June 24, 2009
Except we’re not. In fact, I have taken the position that drug users, barebackers, etc. are MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions – the opposite of encouraging use. To the back of the bus, fruitcake.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - June 24, 2009
25 comments until the mask comes off and the name-calling begins. I’m impressed.
Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - June 24, 2009
(yawn)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - June 24, 2009
(although, Iggy – slightly interesting to see that you do read my every comment, or what passes with you for reading
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 1:52 pm - June 24, 2009
It’s amusing that ILC flatters himself and in so doing, shows his pleasure at any attention he can derive from me. So much for all his yawning and so much for all his unwitting flattery of me. Ugh.
Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - June 24, 2009
And there you go again, Iggy. Keep up pretense! LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - June 24, 2009
#21: “Plus, Christians do the same thing, so you can’t criticize Islamofascists.”
Ash, the most annoying thing about this pointless debate is that you keep trying to slip Christians into the Islamofascism vs. The Gays blather every 10-12 comments under the radar. I don’t care what you say about gays or radical Muslims (they’ve earned all of it and more), but STFU about Christians. And please, PLEASE (for the love of God), do not respond with some idiotic dissertation entitled Islamofascism = Christianity. It will only confirm for everyone that you’re an imbecile.
Comment by Sean A — June 24, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - June 24, 2009
Sean A, I find it funny that I started out conceding part of Ash’s argument, the part about people with weak egos and a need to conform being attracted to radical groups, only chiding Ash’s ‘hyperbole’:
Golly, I guess partial agreement isn’t good enough. Let me give Ash some more disagreement, then:
Speak for yourself. I’m not; which, by your logic, means I can.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - June 24, 2009
Such a comment certainly confirms for everyone that you’re no Christian.
Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - June 24, 2009
“Everyone”? Iggy, I have a long familiarity with your tendency to pretentiousness, but that may be a new… well, I couldn’t say if “high” or “low” is the right word.
My take on Sean A’s comment is the following. I don’t know if he is Christian and I don’t care. Likewise, I don’t know or care if Ash is literally an imbecile. What I do know is that fundamentalist Christians, as a group, deserve far better than Ash’s cheap and gratuitous slurs on them (as the alleged equivalent of Islamo-fascists), and I credit Sean A for understanding that and wanting to defend them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - June 24, 2009
(P.S. same with gays, as a group)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - June 24, 2009
(Oh, and Iggy – do you know who *really* claims to be a Christian on this blog, yet urges disease and death on people who dare to disagree with him? Umm, Ash. And you know who name-calls, then will later offer the excuses of a six-year-old as to why it shouldn’t count when he does it? You. And you know who repeatedly endorses the absolute single worst name-caller who has ever visited GayPatriot, pretending it is somehow virtuous to do so? Also you. We both know you’re reading this – Heh.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - June 24, 2009
#33: “Such a comment certainly confirms for everyone that you’re no Christian.”
And your comment conclusively affirms that you’re a liberal because only liberals have the unmitigated arrogance to announce who IS and IS NOT a legitimate member of the western religions they despise and misrepresent. [Nancy Pelosi informing the world that Catholicism only started frowning on abortion within the last 50 years--and getting appropriately bitch-slapped by the Vatican within the hour--springs to mind.] And for the record, the “STFU” was actually an act of Christian charity on my part. Jesus was about to smite your sorry ass with a couple of lightning bolts, but I asked him to spare you as long as you STFU about Christians.
Comment by Sean A — June 24, 2009 @ 11:22 pm - June 24, 2009
[...] On Islamofascism, George Eliot Gets Got It [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Mark Sanford: Disappointing Conservatives with his Indiscretion — June 25, 2009 @ 12:09 am - June 25, 2009
No, Obama gets it. And its no coincidence that Pakistan is finally addressing the problem on its western border. The Pakistani Army has gone like a hot knife through butter in the Swat Valley and is preparing for an all out assault on the Taliban stronghold in South Waziristan.
Which is why I’ll go out on a limb and predict that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri will be dead by Christmas. They are in a world of trouble and their time is almost up. They’ll try to flee and they will be killed.
Of course, when this happens, I suspect you guys will give the Obama Administration no credit. But Obama has finally gotten Pakistan to do what they should have done years ago.
Just watch.
Comment by Erik — June 25, 2009 @ 12:49 am - June 25, 2009
LOL….or Pakistan has finally realized, after massive casualty counts, that it is not in their best interests to tolerate such behavior any longer.
Obama has deliberately tried to sabotage Pakistan by announcing that the US has been operating on and launching missions from their territory. Unfortunately, that, like his support of the Iranian mullahs, did exactly the opposite of what he intended.
Meanwhile, what’s happening in Afghanistan? Oh, that’s right; Obama has banned engagement with al-Qaeda and Taliban members and ordered troops to retreat from fighting them.
Sounds like Obama is creating a safe haven for his fellows, just like he did with his terrorist friend Bill Ayers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2009 @ 1:34 am - June 25, 2009
So, Pat, I’m not really being battered, and I should support my abusive husband?
Ashpenaz, I didn’t know you had a husband. If your husband is battering you then a) I condemn your husband’s actions, and b) you should leave your husband or get help so you can get the strength to do so.
I would say that the person who knowingly practices unsafe sex is equivalent to a suicide bomber–he’s going to die anyway, and he takes innocent people with him.
Not even close. The victims of a suicide bomber had zero choice in the matter. The “victim” of a person who knowingly practices unsafe sex is a person that knowingly practices unsafe sex who made such a choice and had the choice to not even have sex. I thought we at least agreed that all persons, not just gay persons, should not jump into sex with someone they just meet (for among many other reasons, lest the person they have sex with has STDs). And I’d think we also agree that if one does, then at least don’t have unprotected sex.
Many gay teens and twenty-somethings commit suicide because they have been exploited sexually by older men.
I doubt that.
Whenever you exploit someone’s ignorance and lack of experience in order to have sex with them, you are raping them.
No, unless the person is under 18. Again, I was as stupid as anyone else at 18, if not more so. But I was responsible for my actions at 18. And as stupid as I was, I knew I had the power and ability to say no, and did so, in fact.
Again, the fact that “straight people do it, too,” is like excusing Islamofascism because a certain amount of Christians also bomb people.
Except I am not excusing the behavior who are intentionally trying to spread STDs and any person of any religion who bombs persons. What I’ve been saying is that in one case, a person has 100% ability to not be a victim, and in the other case has 0% ability to not be a victim.
Are you trying to say that if a person came up to you and said that he wanted to have unprotected sex with you, that you would not have the power to say no?
Encouraging people to take drugs is like encouraging someone to strap a bomb on his body. You know he’s going to destroy himself and lot of other people as a result.
We may be in agreement here. Because in both cases, the person being encouraged has the opportunity to say no.
I still think that the gay community is just as bad and just as destructive as the Islamofascist community
Which we obviously disagree.
and the STDS and drug and suicide statistics back me up.
Link?
ow–you and Pat are the best apologists for spreading STDs, encouraging drugs, and sexually exploiting young people EVER! The gay community bears absolutely no responsibility for the lives it destroys.
As ILC also said, you are wrong. I’ve never apologized for the persons who intentionally spread STDs, encourage drug use, or who sexually exploit others. And the persons who bear responsibility for the above are the ones who do such behaviors.
but turn a blind eye to an older guy who infects some twentysomething with AIDS while introducing him to meth. Then they blame the victim.
Again, I am not excusing the older guy here. But the twentysomething victim is not blameless either. Not only did the “victim” have the choice to not have sex or drugs, there’s something else going on here. The victim is apparently willing to have unprotected sex with others. And you’re making the assumption that the victim did not know the STD status of his partner. Then the victim himself, for all he knows, could be spreading AIDS to his partner. Why are you an apologist for the “victim”?
And the twentysomething hanging from the crane should have known better than to hold hands with his boyfriend.
Another invalid comparison. You’re comparing a situation with freedom with one that does not involve freedom. Further, I thought the gay persons hanging from the crane were teens.
Comment by Pat — June 25, 2009 @ 8:04 am - June 25, 2009
Jesus was about to smite your sorry ass with a couple of lightning bolts, but I asked him to spare you as long as you STFU about Christians.
Sean A, perhaps this comment was tongue-in-cheek, and I agree with you that Ashpenaz’s comment about Christians was, at best, inappropriate. But my thinking is that Jesus would not smite anyone who criticizes Christians any more than he would smite anyone who criticizes liberals. Besides, most liberals are Christians.
Comment by Pat — June 25, 2009 @ 8:45 am - June 25, 2009
Pat, your heartless and indifferent comments illustrate perfectly why I do not identify as gay and why I avoid the gay community. Did you ever see the movie The Accused? You demean all the women over 20 who have been raped and exploited and then told they were “of age” and they “enjoyed it.” I thought we as a society had gotten beyond that kind of attitude. The idea that the victims bring it on themselves is the same logic that terrorists use to justify flying planes into buildings.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 25, 2009 @ 10:03 am - June 25, 2009
If anybody’s comments do *not* deserve to be called heartless and indifferent, it’s Pat’s. Again, Ash, you’re a fruitcake.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2009 @ 10:23 am - June 25, 2009
Which, of course, Pat hasn’t done in the slightest.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2009 @ 10:39 am - June 25, 2009
and
OH, I GET IT! This is surreptitious, back-handed witnessing. So at some point, I’ll feel sorry for Christ for having such an embarrassing follower that I’ll be more sympathetic to him. Interesting marketing idea, but it has already been tried and if it were successful, we’d all be Islamic fascists.
As for arrogance, your swagger re. Jesus smiting me is exactly why the Religious Right enjoys its huge popularity and influence.
Folks, this is the lie of religious people who use their faith as a weapon.
Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2009 @ 10:55 am - June 25, 2009
#46: “Interesting marketing idea, but it has already been tried and if it were successful, we’d all be Islamic fascists.”
Oh, haven’t you heard, Ignant? According to Ash, we already are:
“Plus, Christians do the same thing, so you can’t criticize Islamofascists. We’re all just suicide bombers at heart anyway, so you can’t really judge.”
Why recruit when EVERYONE is already a member of a violent, homicidal crusade?
Comment by Sean A — June 25, 2009 @ 11:14 am - June 25, 2009
Humorless and pretentious, as Iggy comments so often are. Sean A’s #37 was obviously exaggerated for rhetorical effect. Where has he tried to hold himself forth as a “religious person”? (Hint: Not in this thread, or any I’ve seen.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2009 @ 11:27 am - June 25, 2009
“Why recruit when EVERYONE is already a member of a violent, homicidal crusade?”
Indeed, you’re proving Ash’s point for him. Props to you. *rolleyes*
If I suddenly stop posting comments, you’ll know I’ve been smitten by Jesus at your bidding.
#42 “But my thinking is that Jesus would not smite anyone who criticizes Christians any more than he would smite anyone who criticizes liberals. Besides, most liberals are Christians.”
Pat, you put the Fidel in infidel.
Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2009 @ 11:27 am - June 25, 2009
Pat, your heartless and indifferent comments illustrate perfectly why I do not identify as gay and why I avoid the gay community.
If that’s the way you are taking it, Ashpenaz, then I’m not sure what to tell you. I do have compassion and empathy for twentysomethings who were somehow manipulated into having unprotected sex with partners who intentionally are spreading the disease. I don’t think I said otherwise.
What I was saying, and the point that we apparently disagree on, is I don’t view these persons as victims the same way that I view the victims of a suicide bomber. In the former case, the victim had the freedom to simply either a) not have sex with a stranger or b) to protect himself if he chose to have sex with a stranger. Further, since the victim was also willing to have unprotected sex, then he has a reasonable probability of having HIV, and (since he apparently didn’t know the HIV status of his partner) could have transmitted the disease to him.
Did you ever see the movie The Accused? You demean all the women over 20 who have been raped and exploited and then told they were “of age” and they “enjoyed it.”
Yes, I saw The Accused. And this example illustrates the difference I and others had tried to point out. The Jodie Foster character did not have the freedom to prevent herself from having sex (i.e., she was raped). The twentysomethings you refer were not raped.
So let me be clear here. I vehemently condemn persons who force sex on someone else. I vehemently condemn persons who intentionally try to spread an STD. While I despise both types of persons, I rather be approached by the latter, because I have the freedom and opportunity to say no to any sexual advances.
The idea that the victims bring it on themselves is the same logic that terrorists use to justify flying planes into buildings.
I have no problem that we have a point of disagreement here. My issue is that are not making any attempt to address my reasoning and point out where my flaw is. You keep on repeating your assertions without pointing out where you believe my flaw is in differentiating the two situations. Could you at least attempt to do that?
Comment by Pat — June 25, 2009 @ 1:26 pm - June 25, 2009
If anybody’s comments do *not* deserve to be called heartless and indifferent, it’s Pat’s.
Thanks, ILC.
Pat, you put the Fidel in infidel.
Ignatius, perhaps my stupidity at 18 is kicking in again, but I’m not sure what you mean here.
Comment by Pat — June 25, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - June 25, 2009
Pat, it’s a joke using word play based upon what you wrote. Forget it.
Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - June 25, 2009
I wish you had spent many years trying to escape Christian fundamentalism and having people trying to argue you back in by trying to prove that your dislike of fundamentalism was due to your own sinfulness. Then you would understand what it’s like to try to escape the gay community. I’m sure that those who try to leave Islamofascism are given the same sort of arguments we find here. “Those people brought it on themselves–if they weren’t capitalists, they wouldn’t have been in the Towers. If they didn’t want to die, they shouldn’t have been in international business in the first place.” There is no reason to address suicide bombing because we’re all part of the capitalist system. There is no reason to address exploitation, drug use, or STDs because we’re all adults here in Rainbow World.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 25, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - June 25, 2009
I can’t make head nor tail of that. The closest I can come is:
1) You might think that someone here might be trying to stop you from “leaving the gay community”. (No one is.)
2) You’ve had bad experiences with Christian fundamentalists and think it excuses your vicious mis-representations not only of them, but of Pat’s comments and mine. (It doesn’t.)
Not remotely close to anything Pat or I have said.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - June 25, 2009
I wish you had spent many years trying to escape Christian fundamentalism and having people trying to argue you back in by trying to prove that your dislike of fundamentalism was due to your own sinfulness.
Ashpenaz, I’m usually a bad mind reader (like most people), but you pretty much confirmed here what I was suspecting. That you apparently had a bad experience with Christian fundamentalists. Sorry about that. And I was never a defender of Christian fundamentalists. But again, once one becomes an adult, one has the power to tell anyone else that they are not interested. Once you turned 18, you had that freedom. You had the power to tell people that your dislike of fundamentalism was due to their sinfulness. No, it doesn’t excuse anyone else’s bad behavior. But again, it does differentiate those behaviors from, say, suicide bombers, who again, do not allow their victims any choice in the matter.
I’m not sure what you even mean by “try to escape the gay community.” Is someone from the gay community putting a gun to your head, or other means of physical force, forbidding you to “escape” everytime you want to leave the gay community? Or everytime you decide not to take crystal meth? Or everytime you decide to not have promiscuous sex?
I have many of the same criticisms of the gay community you have. But how is it, with me living in a coastal state, that I have not had these issues with the gay community? I was always able to decide for myself whether or not to have sex with a stranger (and always said no). And on the occasions I was offered drugs I was able to say no (and did). Is the gay community really that bad in your neck of the woods, that you were powerless to say no?
And again, you have failed to address my argument of the difference between a twentysomething who consents to having unprotected sex with someone with unknown HIV status, and a woman who is raped or a victim of a suicide bomber.
Comment by Pat — June 26, 2009 @ 7:07 am - June 26, 2009