Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

RELIGION: Who decides what’s blasphemous?

Letter by Constance V. Walden, University Place on Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm with 128 Comments »
September 21, 2012 3:18 pm

In a Sept. 21 PRI (Public Radio International) article, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik reportedly wants the United Nations “to develop international legislation to stop the circulation on material deemed blasphemous.”

Who is going to determine what material is blasphemous or not? A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist?

In the Old Testament of the Bible, in Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called, “Mighty God”; and, in the New Testament of the Bible, in John 10: 30-33 Jesus said, “I and the Father are One.” This was considered blasphemous talk by the Jews who heard Him say it because he was making himself equal with God. They wanted to stone him for it.

There is no doubt that the scriptures above are considered blasphemous by Muslims, too. Will Malik want the United Nations to stop such writings as that above as blaspheme against his Muslim beliefs, as well? I think so.

Leave a comment Comments → 128
  1. LeePHilI says:

    A Christian complaining about another religion calling something blasphemous.

    Well….there’s something you see everyday….

  2. Be prepared to be “stoned”, Constance.

  3. Scottc51 says:

    Exactly, Constance. We’ll all have to completely shut down freedom of speech. Almost everything is blasphemous to somebody.
    And Lee, quit looking for an excuse to act offended. Wait for a real insult before you react. Constance didn’t write this from any particular religious perspective.

  4. SandHills says:

    What I can’t understand is why the most liberal point of view seems to side a bit more on the “don”t offend Muslims” view than the freedom of speech point of view.

    If any Christian asked – say just for this forum – that nothing blasphemous against Christianity should be allowed, they would be laughed off by those who have expressed some pretty anti-Christian / anti-religion statements on this blog

    But the idea that Muslims seriously suggest that such laws be enacted to prohibit anything derogatory to their religion, well, liberals chime in with with there usual tripe about respecting everyone and everything…as long as it makes them feel superior to everybody else. That somehow Christians expressing their beliefs in a peaceful manner needs to be beaten down as pure superstition or fantasy…but Muslims repeated violent behavior can be overlooked, if not fully justified because of a perceived insult.

    Since when did Muslims rioting and killing get turned around to being more about being anti-Christian than just being about anti-stupid behavior by Muslims? Since when would liberals not be highly upset about any suggestion that freedom of speech needs to be restrained to protect the dignity of the Islamic faith, when it is usually liberals who assail Christianity with that very same freedom?

  5. Great post Sandhills. The selective support of extremist Islam is perplexing to say the least.

  6. aislander says:

    Lefties love early Christians because they were Semitic (read “sorta brown”) and oppressed. After they became successful and–even worse!–included whites, they no longer had cachet with the victimhood hustlers…

  7. Fibonacci says:

    aisllander
    Not everything is a left vs right argument—–this letter is a perfect example. I am a centrist but probably lean left more often than right and I agree 100 per cent with this letter.

  8. Sonofwashington says:

    Amazing. I haven’t heard one single liberal “selectively support” extremist Islam. Us “libruhls” are only speaking out against those who are so ready to make gross generalizations about Muslims and assume that any and all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and by corollary, anyone who defends Muslims are therefor terrorist sympathizers as well.

    We have repeatedly noted that it would be just as unfair to generalize about all Christians because of the evil actions of a few.

    No one condones terrorist or violent acts on the part of anyone, regardless of their faith (or claim to a God-inspired mission). But so much of what our right-wing friends say seems steeped in hatred and unwarranted Islamophobia and (ironically enough) a hypersensitivy to any perceived slight to Christianity, a religion that calls for ultimate tolerance and for its adherents to “love thy enemy”.

    Actually, just loving thy neighbor would resolve 95% of our world’s problems.

  9. When the government appoints a language czar you can all count your freedoms essentially gone. Especially appreciated your comment SH

  10. averageJose says:

    Excellent observation Constance, and excellent post @ 3:52 pm SandHills.

    May I add that the lefties here have mocked posters for even hinting that mulsims want to impose Sharia right here in the U.S., now we have a good example an attempt.

  11. averageJose says:

    We have repeatedly noted that it would be just as unfair to generalize about all Christians because of the evil actions of a few.
    The only thing you got right.

    Comparing muslims to Christians is about as accurate as comparing muslims to secularists or athiests.

  12. yabetchya says:

    Those on here who love to bash the Christian’s and Jew’s, will have a hard time bashing Constance this time. We all know her political views. She makes a valid, strong arguement that both sides should agree on.

  13. took14theteam says:

    When I saw who wrote the letter, I knew WHO would make the first comment.

    I could stoop to his level and call him what he is, but I won’t….

    Tickle that Ebony and Ivory tonight, Olympia man….

  14. MyBandito says:

    Constance asks- “Who is going to determine what material is blasphemous or not? A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist?”

    All of the above.

  15. lylelaws says:

    Constance,

    I think the best thing the United Nations could do would be to close its doors.

    America pays at least two-thirds of its costs and about that same percentage of the member countries hate our guts.

    At a time when we are on the brink of bankruptcy why do we continue to prop-up such a virtually useless orgainization?

  16. Sonofwashington says:

    Jose – That Sharia Law thing is just one more bogeyman from the right wing to keep the flock all aforthin’ about something. It would take a legislative body to pass such a law in the first place.

    The great concern should be those on the Christian right, e.g., Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum, who would happily impose his notion of religious law on everyone, from banning abortion without exception to controlling what coverage women can get for contraceptive medicines, and of course banning gay marriage or even gays from the military. They would love to make America into a theocracy, so if you want to fear religious (or “Shari”) law, you best look at the Christian right.

  17. MyBandito says:

    lylelaws- Maybe because it’s the right thing to do. Unless you’re leaning in favor of isolationism.

  18. DevilDog2019 says:

    MyBandito- I may not agree with LL on a few things… However why do you then think that We, The United States of America, a Sovereign Nation, need with the UN any way? As Lyle stated we pay 2/3 of the bill and receive all the hate. How would we be isolating ourselves by not belonging? If we were to leave, then our strongest allies would have follow suit, because they would end up footing the bill.
    Constance asks- “Who is going to determine what material is blasphemous or not? A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist?”

    MyBandito replies- “All of the above.”
    A Christian apologizes, A Jew apologizes, A Buddhist apologizes, (meaning that they will all come to some type of compromise), a Muslim…. Yeah Right. Try and looking up Sharia Law in Europe and the US. You will see that it is sneaking its way into the legal system by getting into Family Law first!

    And back on topic, Constance a very well stated letter.

  19. BillBrewster says:

    I think freedom of speech is a real thorn in the side at the United Nations. I tend to think most of the nations (maybe) would prefer the US government to gain more control over their people.

  20. I agree with the letter, but I hope her indignation also includes calls by Fox News commentators for Obama to denounce South Park as blasphemous to Christianity and other faiths.

    The White House called the film reprehensible and disgusting, but also talked about the American value of freedom of speech.

  21. Son, just wondering if you’re aware that the second paragraph in your 10:33 post completely contradicts the first.

    Imposing sharia law in the US would take an unlikely, at present, act of legislative body(s) alright – executive and judicial as well. It would mean a revolution – the result of which would be the destruction of our Constitution as we currently recognize it.

    But your claims regarding “bogeyman” Rick Santorum’s designs, aside from the fact they seem a bit paranoid, would also require “a legislative body”. At present, every so-called goal of Santorum’s that you listed with the exception of gay marriage is law of the land.

    As for your claim “they would love to make America into a theocracy, so if you want to fear religious (or “Shari”) law, you best look at the Christian right”, go back and re-read your first paragraph substituting at the obvious and appropriate points, “theocracy” for sharia law, and “left wing” for right wing.

  22. Do not forget that an accurate understanding of “progressive” is a slow, incremental progression towards something altogether different than the original. I believe it is the intention of President Obama and his cohorts to fundamentally transform America. Heck, he has said it himself.

    Regardning sharia law, devildog says “You will see that it is sneaking its way into the legal system by getting into Family Law first!”

    This is what I mean about progressive. Surely you’ve all heard the analogy of the frog in the pot. Throw him into boiling water and he will leap out. Place him in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat and he will cook.

    Gullible Americans are like those frogs in cold water IMO. My point about “language czars” is part of this possibility….little by little we relinquish control of our lives to the authorities who think they know what’s best for us all.

    And just so you know, I will fight against Christian legalism as actively as I will continue to fight against progressive cookery. Freedom is the key word here folks. Freedom.

  23. First off, the author takes too seriously a statement of religious preference coming from Pakistan. Next, the author gives us a quotation from the bible with a between the lines implication that it is the truth.
    The problem in both cases is that nobody has to believe either statement and for someone to make the opposite claim, which is what happens all the time in religious conflict, is consummate nonsense.

  24. So… you’re saying atheists should make the call, Pub?

  25. sozo, even before Sharia law was used in American Family law courts, Jewish law has been used since our founding as well as Coptic and other Christian sectarian laws. While a court cannot impose any religious law on its own, it can support enforcement of agreements by involved parties that sign a contract based on religious laws and doctrines.

    Your argument has no merit, unless you are supporting government interference by refusing to allow private parties to develop contracts.

    I would think that conservatives would be much more concerned about government dictating the contents of private contracts, but knowing the hypocrisy of some right wing Christians, not much surprises me any more.

  26. LeePHilI says:

    “Constance didn’t write this from any particular religious perspective.”

    Quoting the Christian Bible has no particular religious perspective???

    Maybe not, since Connie didn’t refer to herself as a Christian, African-American or Conservative this time.

    The only thing that creates “blasphemy” is the mind of the receptor. If you have to “special friend” in your mind that runs your life, you’ll have nothing to be offended about in terms of blasphemy.

    As to Connie getting “stoned”…I think that happened before the letter

  27. LeePHilI says:

    “Freedom of Speech” is not the cure for annoying others. Manners are.

  28. MyBandito says:

    Manners! We don’t need no stinking manners.

  29. Sonofwashington says:

    Publico – Totally agree with you that this religous heckling about “blasphemy” is consummate nonsense”. One man’s scripture is another man’s curse.

    Clamato – Sorry, but there is no contradiction there. This paranoia about sharia law slowly sneaking its way into public law is bogus. It’s reminiscent of the old strawman, “a communist under every bed”. But I’m open to hear of a clear example from you where a legislative body has actually passed a Muslim edict into law.

    On the other hand, there are dozens, nay hundreds of examples of our right-wing Christians trying to get laws into place that would enforce their religious dogma. Besides the ones I mentioned already, there is the great example trying to get “intelligent design” into school curriculum as well as “creationism”. The Catholic church wants to enforce the denial of insurance coverage for women’s contraceptives even for non-Catholic women who are employed by their non-church activities, e.g., hospitals. (And because Obama kept it in the responsiblities of the insurer, the Catholics still call it a denial of their “freedom of religion” to deny non-Catholics a benefit they would otherwise enjoy.)

    Mr. Santorum (and I believe Justice Scalia) holds the bible as a superior authority to the Constitution.

    Just to reaffirm my original statement, we are far more vulnerable to Christian “sharia law” than we are to Muslim sharia law. But I also realize this is of little comfort to the Islamophobes among us.

  30. Clam, I am saying that the argument posed by the author is not worth very much because it’s nature is purely metaphysical.
    “It is because arguments fail us when we come to deal with pure questions of value, as distinct from questions of fact, that we finally resort to mere abuse.”
    “The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought.”

  31. aislander says:

    I actually agree with tuddo: parties to a contract may base their agreement on whatever criteria they choose, as long as those criteria don’t violate any law.

    Obeying Islamic law is perfectly legal for individuals (again, as long as there is no conflict with criminal law), but not for any governmental body.

  32. … Christians trying to get laws into place that would enforce their religious dogma.

    So… you’re saying that imposing sharia law would require an act of law, and imposing (Christian) “religious dogma” requires an act of law, yet you state “we are far more vulnerable to Christian “sharia law” than we are to Muslim sharia law”?

    Okey-dokey.

    It seems to me our Constitution is functioning as purposed for either instance – therefore I stand by my original statement; your 10:33 is contradictory.

  33. aislander says:

    It seems to me that those on the left are way too interested in intentions and motivations when it comes to actions. The actions are what matter.

    That works a couple of different ways. For example, Bill Clinton is reputed to be moved by altruism (albeit with other people’s money), so his outrageous actions were forgiven by his coreligionists. Those whose intentions are NOT seen in that light never find forgiveness in sinister quarters. (sinister means “left,” btw)

    On the other hand, a politician who is seen to be acting on the basis of his Christian principles (although not writing those principles into law) is considered a threat to establish a “theocracy.” Traditional American culture always viewed acting on that basis to be admirable, which illustrates how much the progressive movement has already damaged the nation.

  34. My day, my week, heck, maybe my year has been made. aislander agrees with me on something!

    Now, to make sure it never happens again, let me pick a point with you.

    A politician acting in his own private life on the basis of his religious views is admirable, but we don’t make laws in this country based on religious principles. Well, we have, like bans on interracial marriages, but if religion is the reason and there are no secular benefits, the courts have struck them down as unconstitutional.

    Of course there is overlap, but we do not have rules against murder because it was in the Bible, or because it was in the Quran. We have it because it harms others and harms our society.

    We allow no-fault divorce, even though it is banned for Christians by the Bible (except for adultery) because we’ve decided that there are benefits to our society including the right to make personal decisions about how we live our lives.

    “By “traditional American culture”, I hope you do not think you are including the majority of our founders as supporting making laws based on religious dogma, because they didn’t, and you cannot rewrite history to say they did.

  35. ThinkerDem says:

    Blasphemy exists, subjectively, in the mind of the believer and only applies to negative or unflattering comment about their personally preferred supernatural being. The existence of any alleged supernatural deity has ever been, nor ever can be proven by any objective evidence. Believers have been killing each other over perceived affronts to their chosen mythical beings humans invented them in their search for the meaning of their own existence and justification for their claim to the right to control others, usually their women and children and those beneath their own economic or social status. The constitutional separation of Religion (Church,Synagogue, Temple, Mosque etc.)and State is being eroded by pandering to religion through tax exemptions and “faith-based initiatives” that force everyone to subsidize the “good works” that members’donations, tithes, etc. used to pay for. That frees more of their congregation’s donations for political activity aimed at legislating their particular dogmas and forcing everyone, believer, or not, to live by them. So the Catholic Bishops don’t want hospitals, universities, etc. that employ and accept payment from non-catholics to be required to furnish contraception in their employee health insurance? Fine–then don’t give Catholic, or any religious organization public tax money to “feed the hungry and clothe the naked”. Let them put their money where

  36. aislander says:

    Just as parties to a contract may base their agreement on whatever criteria they choose, tuds, politicians may base their votes or their persuasion on whatever criteria they choose–secular or religious, emotional or rational.

    And you would never know for sure, unless said politicians decide to announce it, what their motivations might be.

    And even if a pol says, “I did it because of my religion,” that is not the same as writing those religious principles into law AS religious principles because it does not establish a state religion.

  37. aislander says:

    The Supreme Court, in examining a new law, would never presume to read the minds of the lawmakers who enacted the law–as you seem to suggest it should–but would rule only on the basis of whether the law itself conforms to the Constitution.

    You know: actions mean something; intentions don’t.

  38. aislander, do you agree with President Kennedy’s words (which assuaged Southern Baptist preachers’ concerns) or are you like Rick Santorum who said he “nearly threw up” when he read the following?

    “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

    I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

  39. aislander wrote: “That works a couple of different ways. For example, Bill Clinton is reputed to be moved by altruism (albeit with other people’s money), so his outrageous actions were forgiven by his coreligionists.”

    That is the biggest bunch of nonsense ever on this page. I don’t forgive him anything. What he chose for himself is his business and he gets to live with the consequences. It is no concern of yours unless you were directly affected.

  40. aislander says:

    I believe you are advocating for a principle that has no practical application.

    If two politicians vote to extend benefits to the underprivileged for “moral reasons,” what does it matter how they arrived at their moral judgments?

    Or do you maintain that morality has no place in public policy?

  41. aislander says:

    So…Pubs…when a US President commits perjury while in office, it doesn’t affect the citizenry?

    As that philosopher i-am-jimm might say: Kooky!

  42. aislander says:

    tuds: I meant to add: “…one because of his religion, and one because of his ideology, what does it matter how they arrived at their moral judgments?”

  43. aislander, morality and religion are two different things. Many times they overlap, but often they do not.

    Some people base their entire sense of morality on their religious views.

    I have met people that do not believe in religion but have a personal moral code that I think is far superior to many staunch religionists.

    I believe it is a sin to murder someone. I believe it is immoral to murder someone. I also believe it is harmful to our society to allow murder or to let it go unpunished.

    The last statement is why I think murder should be dealt with in the law of the land.

    I do not think it is a sin or immoral to speed while driving. However, I do think it causes harm and should be dealt with in law.

    On gay marriage, I believe it is against the best interests of this nation to deny it, and I think we are doing harm to others and to our society by restricting it. My moral code includes not involving myself in people’s personal lives when it does not affect me or my family or my nation.

    It doesn’t matter what my personal religious views are or what my views are on the morality of gay marriage, because it will not affect my religious views or my personal morality either by restricting it or by allowing it. It doesn’t affect my relationship with my God in any way, and I cannot see how it will affect any one else’s either.

    There are many definitions of morality, so I really can’t answer your question unless I know what you consider to be morality. If you think it equals religious dogma, then, no I do not see any place for it, but if you mean by morality deciding what will do the most good, eliminate or reduce harm, then yes, that is part of decision-making in public policy.

  44. aislander says:

    This is all a big “so what,” tuds. People’s morality is formed by various influences, religious beliefs among them. They then act in concert with their moral framework.

    What would you DO about any of this?

  45. This is the first, and probably last, letter from Constance Walden that I agree with.

    The UN has no business dealing with the restriction of free speech even when it is considered blasphemous by ANY religion.

  46. aislander, I believe taking freedom and liberty and equal treatment under the law away from someone because of religious views is an immoral act.

    When anti-gay marriage laws are defended in court, for example, religion and morality will play no part in a successful or unsuccessful defense, because past court cases have said people’s views on such, even the majority’s, cannot be used to defend secular laws that restrict individual rights.

    Virginia defended their ban on interracial marriage by saying it was against God’s will and it was immoral and offended the sensibilities of a moral citizenry. They thus conceded that the ban was passed on religious and moral grounds and no other, and therefore the court struck it down.

  47. aislander says:

    That’s IT?? We’re back to gay marriage? No wonder you were so dogged in trying to impeach any NON-religious argument against it–you want to narrow the argument.

    Get outta here, yuh knucklehead…

  48. Sonofwashington says:

    Clamato – Once again, there is no contradiction. We are in agreement that any religious based law would have to be put in place by a legislative body. My argument is that there is virtually no chance Muslim Sharia law would be codified into law (and therefore your concern on that score is unfounded) but there are dozens of efforts to impose “Christian-based” into law, of which I gave several examples. Of course the most flagarant example is the efforts the religious right to actually AMEND the Constitution of the United Stated to DENY marriage rights to gay couples.

    Thus my conclusion that we are far more vulnerable to Christian-style sharia law that we are to your bogeyman of Muslim Sharia law.

  49. aislander says:

    There is no effort to amend the Constitution to deny anybody anything, except to deny dictatorial judges the ability to create law from whole cloth.

    Who would have thought that the definition of marriage would have to be specified in law, anyway?

  50. LeePHilI says:

    “aislander says:
    Sep. 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm So…Pubs…when a US President commits perjury while in office, it doesn’t affect the citizenry?”

    I think it affects the citizenry when a President lies to take us to war….so yes, they shouldn’t commit perjury.

  51. aislander says:

    You DO know the definition of the word “perjury?”

  52. aislander, do you?

    Perjury is a legal term, so the definition must be found in the law.

    If you are talking about Clinton, he did not commit perjury. Even if you use “alleged perjury” because he was not convicted, then his lie did not meet the legal standing for perjury.

    In order to be perjury, the statement in question must be “material’ to the case. It is not simply a false statement under oath according to law. Even the witch hunter himself, Kenneth Starr said the lie was not material to any case.

    It is even questionable whether the law allows statements made in preliminary investigations in a civil case to be prosecuted under the perjury laws. No one has ever been successfully convicted, and many legal scholars say that any such convictions would be overturned.

    Here is a legal opinion from Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review in 1999 that was echoed by Starr:

    “Further, no court has held that deposition testimony
    of similarly tenuous relevance and admissibility, given in a civil suit
    between private parties, satisfies the materiality requirement for
    perjury. Therefore, under the materiality standard proposed in this
    Comment, the Clinton-Lewinsky testimony cannot serve as a basis
    for civil perjury.”

  53. My argument is that there is virtually no chance Muslim Sharia law would be codified into law (and therefore your concern on that score is unfounded)…

    Where have I said that? Indeed, an exact quote from my 9:18 post reads as follows:

    Imposing sharia law in the US would take an unlikely, at present, act of legislative body(s) alright – executive and judicial as well. It would mean a revolution – the result of which would be the destruction of our Constitution as we currently recognize it.

    Does that sound like “concern”?

    And did I miss the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right of gays – or anyone, for that matter – to marry? Has the SCOTUS ruled gay marriage is the law of the land?

    Tough to “deny” a right that’s not given. Last I checked it was a states rights issue, which is as it should be, along with abortion, IMO.

    Again with the “bogeyman”. It’s plain your the one with the unfounded fears.

  54. bobcat1a says:

    The UN can pass a million pieces of “legislation” and not a single one of them means anything in this country unless the US Congress and the President sign them into law. The letter is moot. And a waste of time.

  55. If you are talking about Clinton, he did not commit perjury.

    HUH?

    In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct called for the disbarment of President Bill Clinton, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In January 2001 Clinton reached an agreement under which he was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state’s bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him. Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disbarment

    If he didn’t commit perjury, why did he cop a plea and accept disbarment?

  56. Clamat0, many people make agreements that will end lengthy and expensive court cases. Corporations do it and admit no guilt, governments do it and admit no guilt and individuals do it and admit no guilt.

    Did he lie – yes. Did that lie meet the legal definition of perjury – no.

  57. aislander says:

    So…tuddo knows what the meaning of “is” is…

    Another hare bites the dust, cloven in half by the sinister tuddo…

  58. Sonofwashington says:

    Clamato – Maybe I misread you and it was someone else who was concerned about Shari law being imposed in the US. I know a couple of Republican state legislators have proposed laws to deny Sharia law; apparently they are paranoid.

    With regard to gay marriage as a “right” it should be considered a right under the equal protection clause.

    But regardless of how you stand on gay marriage, or whether or not it should be decided by the states, the point remains that the Christian right is trying to amend the Constitution to enforce a religious belief on all Americans regardless of the individual’s beliefs.

    RE: Bill Clinton; the question about perjury is moot because it did not rise to a “high crime and misdemeanor” as was ultimately rejected by the Senate simply because it had nothing to do with the abuse of governmental power but was private sexual affair.

    It was just a shameless partisan political exercise by the Republicans that brought Congress to a halt and wasted a whole lot of taxpayer dollars.

  59. aislander says:

    A “high crime” is something that can be done only by someone in a position of authority who has taken an oath of office. It does not refer to the nature of the transgression.

    Just because the Senate didn’t live up to its duty does not mean that Clinton didn’t lie under oath (“perjury”), and that IS a “high crime…”

  60. There are some deflections going on here.

    The letter is driven by current events. A terrorist attack blamed on a video by the Obama admin. The message from the left is speech should be sensored if it offends extremists. They sympathize with the terrorists and rioters.

    Shameful. Sell out our rights, paid for in blood, out of fear. If not fear, an odd love affair (based on bigotry) with Islam. Shameful.

  61. Sozo – If a language czar is ever appointed in the US it will be by a right wing government.

    aJo – other than in your mind where is the example of attempted imposition of Sharia Law in the US?

    Took – by say you could stoop to his level you show that you are already well below his level.

    Lyle – the US pays about 22% of the UN Budget. Which makes you half right – an improvement over your usual.

    Clamzero – banning all abortion is NOT the law of the Land and gays are serving openly in the military.

    Tuddo – Baptists, like most Christian religions, believe in the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion as long as Baptists don’t control the government.

  62. The real question that is appropriate, rather or not Clinton committed perjury, was why do we feel it is appropriate for the government to be spending millions of dollars to investigate ANYONE’S PRIVATE AFFAIRS?

    Yes, he lied. Yes, he is a womanizing creep. Yes, Hillary should have kicked him to the curb. But how can you folks – who are so adamant in your belief that liberals are taking individual liberties away from you – feel good about the Republican Congress authorized Starr investigation that used their authority to demand that an individual citizen respond to questions about an extra-marital affair?

  63. Closer to the tone of the letter:

    Mormon church threatens to excommunicate member who criticized Romney
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/21/mormon-church-threatens-to-excommunicate-member-who-criticized-romney/

    That is a direct conflict with the anti-politicizing requirements to maintain tax free status.

  64. averageJose says:

    The “act” occured in the work place with an employee. Those “private affairs” are investigated, and disciplinary actions are employed regularly.

  65. beerBoy, It is disturbing that orders came down from LDS HQ that church members should “act as one voice” when they vote and are using threats of excommunication against anyone who says anything negative about Romney to make it clear what they mean.

    averageJose, could you please share where you got your information that the person who was interrogated by the LDS officials and threatened with excommunication was an employee of the LDS? I would like to read more details before I share this story.

    The story beerBoy linked to did not have that information. It said he posted to a private web site of current and former LDS members who post historical articles about their church.

  66. Lynnwoodfats says:

    Get US out of the UN.

  67. LeePHilI says:

    Oh….let me be the first to ask….

    IS CLINTON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?????

  68. Tuds, AJ was talking about Clinton. Keep up.

    Bb, that some great journalism there! All sorts of facts and information verified by multiple sources. No, it some dude whining he got talked.

  69. LeePHilI says:

    CLINTON ISN’T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

  70. Did that lie meet the legal definition of perjury – no.

    How can you say that?

    The State of Arkansas clearly disagrees with you. And if I have to pick a party, between you and the Arkansas State AG, who is more familiar with the case…

    I think any objective person reading the paragraph I posted would conclude that in fact he did commit perjury. Why else would he cop a plea in lieu of perjury charges, accept a fine and suspension of his license in Arkansas, as well as disbarment by the SCOTUS?????

    Split hairs on the pending charge if you like, tuddo. Since it never went before a jury we’ll never know – it is also entirely possible he may have bee acquitted. But one could easily conclude that Clinton didn’t think so. And given the sad state of his reputation at the time, if he felt he had a chance in court, don’t you think he would have fought it?

  71. Clamzero – banning all abortion is NOT the law of the Land and gays are serving openly in the military.

    xxxxrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnng, Evelyn Wood calling. Kindly learn how to read for comprehension. Nowhere have I stated “banning all abortion” is the law of the land, or pretty much any other bizarre, confused misinterpretation of my comments that you so regularly posit.

    And I get a good laugh each time one of you saintly libs tries to mock my screen name. You should know the name is itself an abomination, created by one Larry P Hill, of a previous screen name.

    How stupid does it make one look? I mean, mocking an adopted mockery. Ooooh that hurts, LOL!

  72. Clamat0, so I guess you support some of the Sharia Law concept that a person is guilty of all allegations until they prove their innocence instead of the American way of innocent until proved guilty?

  73. aislander says:

    That last comment was stolidly earnest, tuds.

    “A” for consistency!

  74. Tuddo, I’ll skip pointing out the straw man fallacy and just point out the fact that are you ignoring the part of my post wherein I said “since it never went before a jury we’ll never know – it is also entirely possible he may have bee acquitted.”

    Does that sound like advocacy of sharia law to you?

    Do I think Clinton was guilty of perjury? Obviously, yes… but then I am convinced OJ Simpson is a double murderer too.

    The difference is that OJ didn’t cop a plea.

  75. Thanks, Clamat0 for making it clear that we agree that Clinton was not guilty of perjury. (Belief and fact are two different things. I was just stating it as a fact, you as a belief.)

    Do you want to talk about Bush now that we’ve been through the Clinton years? I didn’t think so.

  76. aislander says:

    Well, tuds, now that you bring this back to Bush, one of your coreligionists resurrected the canard, “Bush lied,” and equated that to Clinton’s lying under oath (you will admit he did that, won’t you?).

    I don’t believe Bush lied to engage us in the Iraq war, but that ground has been plowed many times, and I don’t wish to go over it again. But if Bush DID lie, there was no law against it–many Presidents have lied to the public for various reasons at different times.

    There IS a law against lying under oath–even if it is pleaded down from what it really is: perjury…

  77. LeePHilI says:

    Oh….did I mention that CLINTON ISN’T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

  78. aislander says:

    I seem to recall that the coreligionist who said “Bush lied” DID say something about Clinton’s not running.

    He IS, however, VERY prominent in the current campaign…

  79. aislander says:

    …and there is a law against lying under oath.

  80. Is Larno0s really whining about a Clinton discussion? The same guy who cannot go one day without blaming Bush for everything negative in the universe, from the fall of Rome to solar flares.

    Thanks for the laugh!

  81. Clamat0
    SEP. 23, 2012 AT 11:55 AM

    Do I think Clinton was guilty of perjury? Obviously, yes…

    tuddo
    SEP. 23, 2012 AT 12:43 PM

    Thanks, Clamat0 for making it clear that we agree that Clinton was not guilty of perjury.

    End self-flaggellation.

    Begin deflection:

    Do you want to talk about Bush now that we’ve been through the Clinton years?

    Actually, I think we’ve strayed far enough afield.

  82. aislander says:

    Since Clinton is so visible in Obama’s campaign, he is relevant to current political discussions, whereas W has been mostly above the fray (or out of the fray, at least).

    tuds seems to have given up on the Bush angle since it was turned around on him…

  83. Golly….it is so good of W to stay “above the fray”…..especially since his Party has disinvited him to particpate.

  84. aislander says:

    I don’t know for sure whether W was “disinvited” or chose to stay away from the convention. Do you know? For sure? He DID appear via video, and his brother was there in person, as were former administration officials.

    Staying “above the fray” is in W’s history though. That’s what he did when he was being so viciously attacked during time of war in way that those who did the attacking are now saying is treasonous.

    In other words: Attacking Obama policies now: treasonous. Attacking Bush policies then: highest form of patriotism.

    By God, this is fun!

  85. averageJose says:

    averageJose, could you please share where you got your information that the person who was interrogated

    I was referring to one of the things Clinton perjured himself over.

  86. averageJose says:

    One big difference between the last few republican presidents and the last few democrat presidents is how the democrat presidents try to stay in the limelight after their term is up. The republican presidents honor the new office holder by staying OUT of the limelight.

  87. lylelaws says:

    xring,

    So the U.S. only pays for 22% of the U.N. budget?

    Well since there are 193 U.N. member countries, do you think we should pay more for the leaders of countries like Iran and Venezuela to come here and spew their hatred of America and claim diplomatic immunity for many of the laws they break?

  88. Bush would be boo-ed off the stage if he ever showed up in the “limelight.”

  89. LeePHilI says:

    Uh….Lyle….I’m guessing the percentage of the budget is based on usage of services.

    I guess you think everyone should kiss America’s….uh…ring…

    Here’s a clue – Venezuela is getting along just fine without the US money and with people like you beating the drum, I’m certain they will continue on their quest to not need the US and help other countries who see things their way.

    Don’t look now, but the location of the UN is supposedly non-partisan. Would you rather see all that money go somewhere other than the United States?

  90. LeePHilI says:

    “CT8 says:
    Sep. 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm Is Larno0s really whining about a Clinton discussion? The same guy who cannot go one day without blaming Bush for everything negative in the universe, from the fall of Rome to solar flares.
    Thanks for the laugh!”

    The laugh was…..I was mocking you. Thanks for getting it…finally.

    Actually, you can’t take all the credit. Everytime Bush is brought up on the economy of the US (the problems didn’t go away when Bush did), the majority of the Whinery Union #69 usually invokes the “Bush isn’t running” clause. But you are the one I love to mock the most.

  91. lylelaws says:

    LeePHill/xring,

    So now, at a time when America is hopelessly in debt and 23 million of our people are out of work, are you OK with borrowing more than a billion dollars from China again this year to poy for our share of the expenses of this useless organization?

  92. aislander says:

    lylelaws: Those people believe either that running huge deficits actually will spur economic growth in spite of all evidence to the contrary (FDR didn’t spend enough, which is why the Great Depression lasted so long), generating enough tax revenue to balance the budget AND fund lots more social programs.

    OR the spending will cause an economic collapse, creating the opportunity to install the socialist Utopia they dream of–with those such as themselves in charge, of course.

    I don’t see a third possibility. Do you?

  93. aislander says:

    Oh, and we won’t be borrowing the money from China, since they have cut way down on buying our T-bills. Our own Federal Reserve is buying up most of our debt in a transparent straw-purchase scheme.

    That has to end well…

    Thought of a third possibility: a push for a world government, with that organization we all love in charge of our lives…

  94. aislander says:

    That has to be it. I am a little sleep-deprived and perhaps credulous to conspiracy theories as a result, but here goes:

    The economy of the United States is the most important in the world and other economies depend on it to be the engine that drives the world economy. Therefore other nations have a stake in our economy.

    When a person or a company is manifestly unable to manage its own affairs, what usually happens? A guardian, conservator, or receiver is put in charge of the affairs of the person or company.

    We as a nation are manifestly unable to manage our own affairs, and, if our economy crashes and takes down the rest of the world, I can easily imagine a scenario in which everyone clamors for a takeover by the UN, even including citizens of America, such as LeePHill and xring.

  95. averageJose says:

    Absolutely Aislander. We have plenty of examples of our democrat pols that seem eager to give control to the U.N.

  96. But we do seem eager to give control to the Israeli P.M.:

    Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism and long time friend of Bibi stated what everybody had been thinking and talking about.

    “I find myself wondering if Bibi Netanyahu is completely out of control….Events of the last months have left me in a state of stunned belief…Netanyahu has inserted himself into the American election campaign, with predictable and catastrophic results.”
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/22/262947/netanyahus-obama-shakedown-fails/

  97. A former union leader? Are you going to quote the garbage man next? You are better then this.

  98. LeePHilI says:

    “lylelaws says:
    Sep. 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm LeePHill/xring,
    So now, at a time when America is hopelessly in debt and 23 million of our people are out of work, are you OK with borrowing more than a billion dollars from China again this year to poy for our share of the expenses of this useless organization?”

    No, Lyle….I’m for cutting the defense budget significantly so that we don’t have to borrow from the Chinese to buy toys. That “useless” organization spends….how much….in New York City?????

    Sorry I didn’t answer your loaded question the way you wanted me to.

    As to our people out of work…..maybe when companies like Bain Capital quit sending our jobs to China, our people will not be out of work.

  99. LeePHilI says:

    My brother is a former union leader, Confused. He’s probably responsible for saving more lives that you have dreamed of with your military hero fantasy.

    Meanwhile, what’s wrong with a garbage collector? Honest days work cleaning up behind people who think that recycling is a socialist plot.

  100. LeePHilI says:

    Need a good laugh? Read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_Reform_Judaism

    The word “union” made Pavlov’s dog salivate. LOL

  101. Thanks, I was wondering where he got the Union reference.

  102. I suppose that a $1 million ad campaign in Florida – a large and important swing state – featuring, and paid for by, the Prime Minister of a foreign country doesn’t concern ct8….

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is featured in a new $1 million ad scheduled for Florida that seeks to make Iran a major campaign issue.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/netanyahu-florida-iran-ad/2012/09/20/id/457035

  103. I dropped out of this discussion because I realized I contributed when it moved from blasphemy to perjury. All of this has to do with blasphemy and what to do about it, how?

    Maybe we’ll get some letters later today about the campaigns and Israel and unions and U.N. conspiracy theories.

    Lyle, why wait until Friday, take a shot now so we can all jump back into the water.

  104. bB, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’niel were “friends” too – just not politically.

    The same would be true of 0bama supporter and big-time progressive Rabbi Eric Yoffie and Bibi Netanyahu.

    While Youffie and Netanyahu share some interests concerning Palestinian statehood, there isn’t much else they agree on. Maybe that’s why Youffie’s known as “0bama’s Rabbi”.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/obamas-rabbi-sidekick-is-opposed-to-too-many-arabs-in-israel.html

  105. A little humor for you morning Lardn0s.

    BB has a new habit of quoting random any liberal pundit, with no regard to actual status.

  106. Scottc51 says:

    So much confusion on this line of comments.
    I’ll decide what is blasphemous.

  107. from the link above 14Jimms’ link:

    Tampa strip clubs getting webcams, ‘Nailin’ Paylin’ Sarah Palin lookalike stripper for RNC

    From TBO.com

    Strip clubs may not be the most politically correct venue for those attending the Republican National Convention, but that doesn’t mean Tampa’s well-known adult hot spots won’t be ready for the influx of visitors.

    One place is bringing in a stripper who looks like former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.** There are major renovations taking place. And some nude clubs have already been giving potential customers a taste of the talent online.

    Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/07/tampa-strip-clubs-getting-webcams-sarah-palin-lookalike-stripper-for-gop-invasion.html#storylink=cpy

    Got to wonder if ItalianSpring has her porno film…..

  108. averageJose says:

    LOL… nice deflection Arts.

    btw, thought you were ignoring me.

  109. Sonofwashington says:

    The person who decides what blasphemy is should be the same genious who figures out how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

  110. MyBandito says:

    72

  111. Islam, the self annointed religion of tolerance cant accept a small movie production and goes into a jihad blessed by Obama and Hillary.

    Christians, who are supposedly intolerant made a far more dubious movie that ridiculed much of the fundamentals of the Christian faith and as far as I can tell never rioted because of it.

    In fact, you can probably find the highly popular film has been on at least one cable channel every month since 1979. Its called “The life of Brian” by Monty Python.

    Its comedic satire, something Radical Islam, Obama and Hillary failed to grasp.

  112. IQof88, I can tell you haven’t ever seen Life of Brian. It affirms the Christian faith while ridiculing those who pose as self-proclaimed prophets. Jesus was treated respectfully in the film.

    It satirizes religious frauds, not Christianity.

    Even so, Ireland banned it and the Catholic Church called it blasphemy. Norway banned it, and many places in the UK banned it for over 30 years. In New York, nuns picketed it and told Catholics they would be excommunicated if they went to see it. Preachers in the USA ordered their congregations not to see it.

    You are right that no one killed anyone over it or rioted, but that is because Western Civilization has changed since the Spanish Inquisition and instituted secular rule with the right to peaceful protest. It ahs more to do with the wisdom of secularist philosophers and the removal of religion from our secular government than any religious divide.

    The director acknowledged that it might be considered heretical, because it does poke fun at some organized religion, but never at Jesus or the fundamentals of Christianity.

  113. 88 – When I went to the opening of Life of Brian it was picketed by Christians. I talked to one of them who claimed that the film was blasphemous. I asked him if he had seen the film. He replied that he hadn’t but his minister said it was blasphemous and that was good enough for him.

    But, to attempt to compare “The Innocence of Muslims” with “The Life of Brian” indicates that you have no understanding of the difference between bigoted propaganda and comedic satire.

  114. aislander says:

    So…what was “The Last Temptation of Christ,” beers?

  115. aislander says:

    What about the book, The Passover Plot?

  116. averageJose says:

    Did they riot beerBoy? Kill anyone? Sodomize and torture?

    Oh, and how many of those muslims saw the movie trailer? Bet someone told them it is blasphemous and that was good enough for them.
    (well, with the exception of the preplanned terror attacks)

  117. averageJose says:

    ===crickets===

  118. sodomize? Oh…right….the unsubstantiated and quickly dismissed report by the Libyan Free Press that Ambassador Stevens (who died of smoke inhalation) was sodomized before being dragged out of the consulate to be murdered – they showed the picture of Libyans who brought the still alive Stevens out of the building in an attempt to save him as “evidence”. You really fall for anything don’t you.

    And…the attack on the consulate was clearly pre-planned.

  119. averageJose says:

    What makes you think he did of smoke inhalation and that anyone tried to save him?

    Ok, for the sake of the discussion we’ll say he wasn’t sodomized. The question remains… did they (the picketers at The Life of Brian) riot or kill anyone?

    btw, you didn’t answer aislander’s question either…

  120. Ok, for the sake of the discussion we’ll say he wasn’t sodomized.

    Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who only agrees to a reality-based statement for the “sake of the discussion” isn’t rational.

  121. The central thesis of the book is that Jesus, while free from sin, was still subject to fear, doubt, depression, reluctance, and lust. Kazantzakis argues in the novel’s preface that by facing and conquering all of man’s weaknesses, Jesus struggled to do God’s will, without ever giving in to the temptations of the flesh. The novel thus powerfully advances the argument that, had Jesus succumbed to any such temptation, especially the opportunity to save himself from the cross, his life would have held no more significance than that of any benign philosopher. In this sense, the novel can be viewed as thoroughly orthodox and traditionalist in its attitude to Jesus’s role as redeemer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ

  122. Never heard of the Passover Plot – wikipedia says it was written by a Bible scholar.

  123. for teen Jimm: US ambassador killed in Libya attack: Chris Stevens ‘given CPR for 90 minutes’, says Benghazi doctor
    The Libyan doctor who treated US ambassador Chris Stevens says he died of smoke inhalation after an attack on the US embassy in Benghazi.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/9540509/US-ambassador-killed-in-Libya-attack-Chris-Stevens-given-CPR-for-90-minutes-says-Benghazi-doctor.html

  124. averageJose says:

    Well schucks, if a Lybian doctor said it, must be bible truth.

    “it is apparent that condescension doesn’t annoy you when it is used in service of viewpoints you support……” who said that?

    (fyi… in order to adminster effective CPR, you must first roll them onto their back ;) )

  125. averageJose says:

    oops… Libyan

  126. averageJose says:

    Crickets from bB…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0