Wanna ask again? Third time is the charm, so they say!
A Jingoistic flame fest is exactly what you see here, People who know from past interaction that they disagree with the politics of the poster in question and respond to said poster’s polite, well stated OP, not with counter arguements, facts and possible different inerpitations of the issues, but with personal attacks, strawmen, empty rhetoric and by bringing up unrelated issues( example:“The Pope supports regimes that kill Jews” “How can you say that, you support a regime that wants to carpet bomb Iraq!”)
The desecration at the church was only directed specifically to the smoking and drinking of some peace activists in the church, the rest, it looks like the priests took it as a necessary burden to protect human life, even I have some problems with that, but still the original desecration complaint was for tanks treads and bullet holes in the plaza.
And yes Zigaretten, I go for your last assessment of december’s opinion.
I see this as a swipe at the Catholic Church which has historically been very hostile to the Jews. “Hostile” is a nice way to put it.
From the early Christians, through the Inquisition, the pogroms, the whole European experience, WWII, etc., the Christians (for quite a while the Catholic Church only) have done every single bad thing you can name to the Jews and december gets pitted for ripping a pope for anti-Semitism? Seems like some misplaced outrage.
**I want to make up a word for misplaced outrage. **
Why no, I am not the Pope, just a lapsed catholic that is impressed by a Pope that helped America bring the fall of comunism now being ignored in this case, I notice that it is better for your position to ignore the quote of december that got us here.
And I still have my doubts about an Instapundit source and my quote did show that one key point of december was pure ignorance, so I still don’t think he is right.
The problem in reality is that the quote assumes that nothing has changed and the church is the same right now, the context was to discredit a PEACE message from the church that has the power to change many minds regarding the support of the War. It was december who brought an anti-Jewish accusation as the reply for the message, regardless of the doubtful support on facts for that volley, it was an ultimate “kill the messenger” action.
Why is it acceptable to point out that the Catholic Church has changed over time and thus their past actions are a moot point, while at the same time many anti-war advocates are very quick to point to what the U.S. did 4 administrations ago as somehow relevant to the current situation with reguards to Iraq?
I can’t imagine why december would connect a Catholic prayer for peace with the survival of Saddam’s regime with the destruction of the Jews in his mind?
Oh, wait, yes I can. I must admit that when I think of the history of the Catholic Church I think in large part of intolerance, torture, and death. I did study medieval history in college, it’s hard not to. So, when a pope makes a move which goes directly against the possible survival of the state of Israel I can understand why some people might jump.
I see that the effort so far has been to paint this and other december pits as undeserved ones because:
1 They considered it old news. (Quick to judge and silly reason to dismiss while acusing the OP of the same)
2) They explain the reason why december arrived to the stinking pile of shit quote that generated the pit, and then assume that that will automatically make it a diamond! (As I see, what it does, is getting you dirty also)
3) Only consider the OP of a different thread as the reason why to ignore the rude quote now in the pit. (This one is a beauty of ignoring why we got here)
4) Continue the killing of the messenger and expecting everybody (or Catholics in this case) to forget the insult.
5) Continue to ignore this is the pit! (You lousy second hand Google cite molester!)
I cannot get so upset since I do agree with some of the criticism to the church, but even though I see that, and I do considered it a valid criticism of THE CHURCH, it is not a valid one for this particular message of peace, it is still a very dishonest way to dump the message that the Pope is bringing in this case. Hence, this pit and the amusing spectacle of wannabe alchemists sprouting left and right (mostly from the right) to change a lump of coal into gold.
Such as repeating the old chestnut that the Pope is the head of a Jew-killing regime is “polite” and “well-stated”? In what universe?
It is very difficult to believe that the Chicago Reader would countenance use of their resources to promulgate simple hate speech such as december has used - and without apology, despite his alleged “politeness”. He’s gone too far a number of times before, but never as far as this.
He then proceded to give a list of reasons why he said this and cites backing them up, cites that pretty clearly show how he arived at that conclusion. Weather you agree with him that what’s going on now constitutes “support” or not, calling it “hate speach” is so far out in left field that it’s in the parking lot. Once again I suspect that dislike for the poster has interfered with your ability to be objective.
Taking the context that that december quote was to counteract a point about a peace initiative, such a rude answer is not defensible as relevant to the discussion; it sounded more like a highjack, and indeed, coming out of left field.
And I do understand why many would see it as hate speech, again, taking the context into account.
