Monday, May 27, 2013

On the Religious Right in America


 As loathsome, doltish, and retrograde as individuals such as these clearly CAN be, I'm sorry, I cannot for the life of me ever envision any of them a) blowing up a giant statue of the Buddha, b) advocating that a homosexual or an adulteress be murdered, or c) taking out a bounty on anybody who has ever insulted them or their religion....I doubt if it's ever even crossed their minds, for Christ.

20 comments:

Lisa G. said...

Pat Robertson (please, will someone change that man's diapers, he seems awfully cranky lately) has said that 911 was caused by gays and the feminists as punishment for their sins and plenty of other shitty stuff about them as well. I'm pretty sure it's crossed his mind. If there was a giant Buddha in the US, I'm pretty sure he would have had it blown up. I don't know who the other guy is.

Rational Nation USA said...

I would have to agree. To a point. However, regardless which faith or ideology zealotry run amok is always a possibility. And when it happens the consequences are never pretty, and can be deadly.

BB-Idaho said...

You suppose the Fatwa side of Christianity sort of petered out
after the Crusades?

dmarks said...

BB: You would have hoped: but unfortunately that side of Christianity was in full force from 1492 onward in the conquest of the Americas.

Not sure, maybe it petered out in the 19th century?

Lisa G. said...

BB - I don't know. It seemed like GWB had a fatwa for Iraq since they had no WMDs and weren't a threat to us. (Not that I'm defending Saddam...) Now we've turned Iraq into a clusterfuck and grew a whole bunch more terrorists. Some people viewed that and Afghanistan as holy wars. I personally don't give Bush that much credit - I still think he was just pissed at Saddam for trying to kill his dad. That and Cheney was itching to bomb the shit out of some 3rd world countries for fun.

Rational Nation USA said...

Afghanistan was a justified action Lisa, 3,000 innocent American lives were lost thanks to Islamic zealots who whether you like it or not are representative of the most vile POS religous faction the modern world faces.

Iraq was a mistake and there was no rational justification for the attack on the country. The action had the effect of destabilizing the region and certainly inflamed the Islamist whack jobs. However, the Islamist whack jobs would find another issue to be inflamed over simply because they HATE WESTERN civilization.

Your unsubstantiated claims with respect to the motivations of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are simply conjecture and straight out our liberal narrative.

So, on short, think it through a bit more deeply and without the liberal (or conservative) playbook and stale talking points.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I supported the Afghan War initially (I actually think that Bush should have been MORE aggressive in going after bin Laden in Tora Bora) but when it ultimately morphed into a nation-building and counter-insurgency enterprise, I kinda went against it and strongly opposed Mr. Obama's surge back in '010.......Iraq, yeah, I opposed that war from day 1, too (though, in retrospect, deposing Saddam on humanitarian grounds would have been justified just as long as we didn't disband the military and de-Baathify the government).

Rational Nation USA said...

Perhaps Will, however my belief is the only thing that justifies the use of deadly force against another sovereign nation is in response to an act of aggression against our people and nation.

Taking out Saddam may have been the "humanitarian" thing to do. But the results have not justified the action. Hussein was an Iraqi problem, not ours.

As to your point of nation building in Afghanistan, agree. And yes, GWB took his eye off the primary objective and mabe we should have nuked Tora Bora. But like they say... water under the bridge.

Lisa G. said...

Rational - I supported the war in Afghanistan initially too. I did not support the war on Iraq because I felt that Bush and Cheney were connecting Iraq to 911, which was blatantly untrue. Let's not forget that Bush called off the troops at Tora Bora so he could continues to use Bin Laden to scare Americans.

I also said that "some people" considered the wars as a holy war. I didn't include myself in that group.

dmarks said...

Lisa is quite unsubstantiated. There were indeed WMD found in Iraq. A lot of the rest of what she said was backwards (opposite of true) also.

RN is capable of being sharply critical of Bush without saying stuff that is a flat out lie (like the "no WMD" claim). All one needs to do is think critically and not sound like a Democratic Party press release.

dmarks said...

Lisa is sure that Robertson would order a major act of terrorism and violence. Is there any evidence? Would the rest of us say this?

BB-Idaho said...

I accept dmarks observation and note that there is little comparison between Robertson/Graham
and Cortez/Pizzaro.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Robertson's a nut but I don't expect that he would go quite that far and I doubt even more so that the dude would order a stoning or a fatwa.

dmarks said...

And Lisa, consider your fatwa observation on light of the fact that the average conflict/etc related deaths per year is lower in Iraq after 2003 than it was before 2003 when a genocidal terrorist kingpin ran it.

And yes it is untrue to connect Saddam's Iraq to 9/11... and Bush/Cheney did not do it.

Also there is no evidence that he pulled the troops away from Tora Bora or did anything to "scare Americans". Too much of the fact-free accusations and nutty conspiracy claims from you, Lisa.

dmarks said...

And Lisa, you are claiming that Bush let Bin Ladengo at Tora Bora intentionally and for a nefarious purpose.... despite the fact that there is 0 evidence for this and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

You are making up nonfactual explanations for what can only really be explained by some combination of incompetance and "it was the best possible decision given the information we had at the time".

In this you are using thd same playbook as Limbaugh, who argues that Obama is intentionally keeping unemployment high for nefarious purposes.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't think that it was nefarious. My theory is that he thought that he could do it with less pain and on the cheap with Afghan locals and that it flat-out just didn't work.......Me - I personally see Bush as much more clumsy and naive than sinister and Cheney as much more of a bitch.

dmarks said...

Will: Exactly. Any any idea Bush intentionally let Osama go so he could have a scare tool is a perfect example of "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Very similar in character to Gohmert, etc claiming that Obama is part of some plot to wage Jihad in the US.

dmarks said...

Will: There are some telltale signs of Bush Derangement Syndrome. These include thinking he stole the election, thinking he intentionally let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora, thinking he is a war criminal, and thinking his Administration rigged the World Trade Center with explosives on 9/11.

And yes there is a pile of telltale signs for Obama Derangement Syndrome no less whacky.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And that he (Mr. Bush) hated the poor, that's another one (ignoring the fact that social, educational, and entitlement spending exponentially grew under Bush - I would argue that it actually grew too much).

dmarks said...

And G.W.Bush paid more attention to the AIDS crisis in Africa than any President before him. And, I am pretty sure, than any President after him.