RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground.

RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 NG, if you mean Reagan and the Sandinistas I totally disagreed with that! Or anything else like that! And, I think our government needs to be "reined-in" when it comes to getting involved in or interfereing in foreign countries. Well, there's Venezuala, Brazil, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq etc. Was it Kissenger who coined the phrase Realpolitik in the '60s? and the neo-cons of the early '70s (many of whom formed Reagan's government) who believed that the United States had a moral obligation to spread Western Liberal Democracy around the world? Anyway, I don't doubt that there are many who support a more isolationist policy, but the point remains that successive US governments have had a hand in installing puppet governments in various countries: it's not just the Bush administration by a long chalk. NG, agreed, I certainly don't think that the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to spread democracy throughout the world. In case you hadn't heard, we're not doing a real good job spreading it around the U.S. with "The Patriot Act." It was more like they were "developing markets" for American corporations. Henry Kissinger was and is a simple liar. If I were President I wouldn't want him on my team, he's such a "towering intellect." lol It seems that our government just goes off and does this shit to help the big corporations and The People be damned! I mentioned this on aother thread but when U.S. Embasseys were bombed in Kenya I didn't even* know* that we had Embasseys in Kenya! And I worked for the U.S. govt for many years! For what possible reason do we have Embasseys in Kenya? I called my congressman's office and they didn't know the purpose of having Embasseys in Kenya! Unbelievable!

farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Momentum It's time for another head chopping, me thinks![:D] Who cares what happens to Mercenaries?

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? I think you need to get your facts straight. It is hard to take you seriously when you can't seperate your facts from urban myths (like Bush's 90 IQ) generated by the liberal news media. Even visiting Snopes.com would poke holes in half of your statements.

CuriousLord -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nagatzhul2 I think you need to get your facts straight. It is hard to take you seriously when you can't seperate your facts from urban myths (like Bush's 90 IQ) generated by the liberal news media. Even visiting Snopes.com would poke holes in half of your statements. Ah, com'n! 90 IQ isn't such a bad thing! With an IQ of 90, you could watch football and drink beer, and actually be entertained and engaged! Also, you could legitimately believe that being a good person is very easy, that the only thing you have to do is follow the Bible and the laws of your country, and that you'll truly be a good person. Wouldn't ignorance like that be such bliss? I can't tell you how much that at times I'm truly, honestly envious. Yes, I'm in a good, jolly, somewhat-playful mood today. This Thanksgiving Break kicked ass.

farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:47:57 PM)
Bush SPEAKS like a fucking moron. So he's a fucking moron. If he wasn't a fucking moron, he would be able to clearly communicate consistently. You have to assume he's ALREADY gotten all the remedial help possible. Well, that and thinking you could have a Unified Iraq which is any sort of Western-Style Democracy... That was pretty fucking dumb, too.

popeye1250 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 NG, I agree with him as regards Empire" (India) and Imperialism. I wonder what his definition of "the moral high ground" is and why do Western countries only, seem to need to have it? Surely there are a dozen countries in Africa that the Archbishop should be chastising as well. Well, the church in England is dying a death, and is largely being propped up by immigrants from Africa. The Archbishop is a supporter of equality within the church; he believes that sexual persuasion should not be the basis for discrimination, but he had to kow-tow to African Anglicans because they're the future, so African politics is a place he's inclined to swerve. In order for his church to retain influence, he needs to appease the Africans. I suppose the self-proclaimed moral high ground in the West is borne out of arrogance and ignorance; we believe we're morally superior (tacitly and explicitly confirmed every day), and thus we preach moral pre-requisites for our actions: 'shame we don't practice what we preach. I mean, honestly, Iraq down to its bare bones: causing widespread misery for economic gain. Any person/country supporting that kind of behaviour shouldn't be lecturing anyone about morals. As you say, a few governments are overstepping the mark. NG, good points. Question, is the COE "Church of England" and the Anglican Church one and the same? I thought they were just two different names that it's called by maybe. Also, I wasn't aware that most of their parishoners were "out of country." In the U.S. I believe they're called "Episcopalians" and yes there's been a lot of hoopla in that Church with Gay Bishops etc and people wanting to form a different branch of the Church that don't want Gay Bishops.

LadyEllen -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:48:52 PM)
Notwithstanding that I agree with you about the extent of overseas funding we in the west give Popeye - something particularly annoying in our UK case, considering many of the recipients aspired to independence from us yet remain somehow dependents, the function of Embassies is important. Most importantly, they provide (or at least should provide) a means of aid and protection for us when in other countries. We have (or at least should have) a friend if things should go wrong. I use the shoulds because the experience of UK citizens who have to call on our Embassies abroad when they get into trouble, seems to reflect an abysmally low level of public service. Embassies also provide a means of discourse between governments of different countries, albeit that I cannot imagine what we might have to discuss which could not be discussed via the UN - but that says more about the UN that Embassies overseas I feel, and in the case of some countries I cannot imagine what we have to discuss with them at all, aside from how much funding they want from us for their corrupt political class and how many immigrants we'd be prepared to take each year. Then there's trade - except that world trade is controlled by the WTO, not by individual countries making reciprocal private arrangements. In any case, given the WTO controls and the fact that many countries dont produce anything of interest and/or dont have the money to buy our goods (except when we "loan" it), the whole trade thing seems a bit bogus too. But there's always and ever espionage. Even if Embassies are meant to be friendly exchanges to show friendly relationships between countries, its pretty much understood that the places are packed with covert personnel doing all sorts of things "for the national interest". That they seem so often to fail in this task is odd, given that it seems to be their only genuine function. Still, it provides some lucrative jobs to "the right people" and some interesting overseas experiences for those of us who arent "the right people". E

CuriousLord -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:50:50 PM)
Bah, in all seriousness, Bush is a more-than-average-intelligence fellow. But, let's be honest. His job's more than what someone of considerable intelligence could aptly handle, and he's not quite to par with it. No reason to hate him for being incompotent, just need to get rid of him, if possible; if not, defaulting to the next best thing, making sure that such an election doesn't occur again. PS- Bah, and now I went and talked about Bush in earnest. Ah wells. He tries his best, so, in this light, I can respect that. In another, though, one can't help but to acknowledge that a man of greater understand would've been likely to have done a better job. Not that I believe Kerry was that man.. damn politicians.. just acknowledging the truth that our elected officials are, by necessity of the requesites for being elected, not those most suited for the job.

farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:52:06 PM)
I was reading this article, IIRC it was Vanity Fair, but I could be wrong, about the Embassy/Fortress in Iraq, and how, given the original purpose of Embassies, ( being a place of cultural and social exchange ) , it's pointless to call these fortresses, "Embassies", which brings me back to the question, in Iraq, why BOTHER having an embassy? The State Department has NOTHING TO DO until the Iraqis get their shit together.

farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Bah, in all seriousness, Bush is a more-than-average-intelligence fellow. But, let's be honest. His job's more than what someone of considerable intelligence could aptly handle, and he's not quite to par with it. No reason to hate him for being incompotent, just need to get rid of him, if possible; if not, defaulting to the next best thing, making sure that such an election doesn't occur again. I hate incompetence. I'm not ashamed to admit that I have high standards. "Lowering the bar" or "Moving the Goalposts" benefits no-one. If an incompetent is unaware of their incompetence, in fact, moving the goalposts does NOTHING to provide accurate feedback to the incompetent.

LadyEllen -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:58:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Question, is the COE "Church of England" and the Anglican Church one and the same? I thought they were just two different names that it's called by maybe. Also, I wasn't aware that most of their parishoners were "out of country." In the U.S. I believe they're called "Episcopalians" and yes there's been a lot of hoopla in that Church with Gay Bishops etc and people wanting to form a different branch of the Church that don't want Gay Bishops. The Church of England is part of, and the originator of the Anglican communion (as distinct from other protestant communions and especially as distinct from the Roman catholic - though in the "high" Church of England there is little difference to the latter). The Episcopalians are part of the Anglican communion, but not part of the Church of England. The Anglican communion is a form of worship, to which the CofE, Episcopalians and churches in Africa adhere. The Episcopalians are necessarily small, the CofE is dying (except for on census forms, where "CofE" means "I'd best write this as I'm nothing else" rather than "yes, I am a member". Meanwhile in Africa, the communion is growing hugely - shifting the balance of power in terms of membership to that continent, where such anti-Christian social evolutions as "women are people too" and "its OK to be LGBT" have not occurred. I personally hope the CofE goes with the Africans - and that this will be its final undoing in terms of public opinion here and that thereby its political nature as part of the state here will be destroyed too. E

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:58:56 PM)
quote: Question, is the COE "Church of England" and the Anglican Church one and the same? I thought they were just two different names that it's called by maybe. Also, I wasn't aware that most of their parishoners were "out of country." In the U.S. I believe they're called "Episcopalians" and yes there's been a lot of hoopla in that Church with Gay Bishops etc and people wanting to form a different branch of the Church that don't want Gay Bishops. Popeye, the terms are used a bit loosely, so some confusion is to be expected. The Church of England is the established religion in England, courtesy of Henry VIII. It's sometimes referred to as the Anglican Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) is the primate, or leading bishop, of the Church of England, but I'm not sure how much real authority he has. Thanks to the British Empire, the Church of England planted seedlings around the world. These have grown into independent churches which are often called Anglican (thereby muddling the meaning of that adjective.) The U.S. seedling grew up to be the Episcopal Church. Episcopalians who disapprove of the EC's liberal bent sometimes call themselves Anglicans instead, as a way of distancing themselves. (Bonus historical fact: The first U.S. bishop, Samuel Seabury, was actually consecrated by Scottish rather than English bishops. The latter wouldn't consecrate him because he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the king.) To complicate things further, the various national churches band together in a loose structure called the Anglican Communion. The ABC is the titular head, but he has no authority over individual churches. Thus the Episcopal Church was free (and right, imho) to ordain an openly gay bishop despite his disapproval. All this to say that the adjective Anglican can refer to (a) the church in England, (b) a seedling church in another country, such as New Zealand, and (c) the whole wordlwide communion. It depends on the context in which the word is used. Hope this helps!

subrob1967 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 1:58:59 PM)
The guy prays to an invisible friend, and I'm supposed to take what he says seriously?

popeye1250 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:06:06 PM)
LadyEllen, the few people I've talked to who had troubles overseas and went to U.S. Embasseys told me they got "ZERO" help. One said they wouldn't even let her use the phone to call the U.S. to ask a family member to wire money! I mean couldn't they just have loaned her $1,000 and sent her a bill when she got home? She was purse-snatched in Brazil. And she said she wasn't made to feel "welcome" in the Embassey at all. Like I've said before, we need to be closing Embasseys, not opening more.

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:09:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 The guy prays to an invisible friend, and I'm supposed to take what he says seriously? Not if you don't want to. Handy thing, that First Amendment.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:10:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Bush SPEAKS like a fucking moron. So he's a fucking moron. If he wasn't a fucking moron, he would be able to clearly communicate consistently. Actually, this is a pretty moronic statement. It assumes certain things about intelligence that simply are not true. You are describing one kind of intelligence, one that he does not have and has never demonstrated to be more than average in. He does, however, possess other kinds of intelligence in spades. And those levels of intelligence are why he has been an above average leader. It is interesting that a lot of the things that are being blamed on Bush's administration were actually the result of policy and policy changes that were brought about by the Clinton administration (terrorism and value of the dollar). And we ignore things like an improved economy and a historic low in unemployment.

farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 The guy prays to an invisible friend, and I'm supposed to take what he says seriously? Meh. I'm not going to disqualify someone JUST for being religious. Now, being a Fundamentalist Nut? That's different. From the headline, who can disagree? It's questionable if the US ever had the Moral High Ground in the first place, given the reluctance to confront the Nazis until AFTER Germany declared war on the US.

farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:12:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nagatzhul2 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Bush SPEAKS like a fucking moron. So he's a fucking moron. If he wasn't a fucking moron, he would be able to clearly communicate consistently. Actually, this is a pretty moronic statement. It assumes certain things about intelligence that simply are not true. You are describing one kind of intelligence, one that he does not have and has never demonstrated to be more than average in. He does, however, possess other kinds of intelligence in spades. And those levels of intelligence are why he has been an above average leader. You are aware of Bush's record of Failure in the business world, so I don't know about that. And given his failure to avoid the quagmire in Iraq, ( What did any Iraqi do to YOU, Buddy? ), I stick by my assessment of "Pretty Fucking Stupid".

bipolarber -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:14:15 PM)
Hummm... America has lost the high moral ground... This from a church which willfully ignored the problems of pedophillia in their ranks for the last 25 to 30 years... Who gave tacit approval of the holocaust (turning their heads the other way, even though it's been proven that the Vatican was aware of the "final solution" as it was going on), sending 6,000,000 jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and political dissidents to their deaths. Who was responsible for the Inquisition... a little operation that makes GITMO look like a summer camp for rich kids. Who threatened Galilieo with torture, if he didn't recant the heresy of saying that the Earth was not the center of the universe... (Which they did not retract until Dec. 25, 1968, as Apollo 8 rounded the moon.) Who burned Bruno at the stake for his crime of saying that there may be other worlds than ours out in space... (The current count, as of this writing, of extrasolar planets is about 450.) Religion in general, and Roman Catholosicim in specific, has done more to hold our world back from the truth than any other institution in existence. It's tortured people, burned them at the stake, threatened the families of people who had greater knowledge, and stood aside as one of the greatest evils in living memory was committed, simply becaue it was convienint for them. Yeah, the ABC's words really hurt ME, to be sure...

popeye1250 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:15:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nagatzhul2 quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? [/quo I think you need to get your facts straight. It is hard to take you seriously when you can't seperate your facts from urban myths (like Bush's 90 IQ) generated by the liberal news media. Even visiting Snopes.com would poke holes in half of your statements. Nage, Well, I was being generous to Congressman Patrick "Patches" Kennedy. His i.q. is probably closer to 80 than 90 so it all evens out. Oh, and I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I'm an independant populist like Lou Dobbs. P.S. Thankyou Lady Ellen and DC Novice for the explanations on Anglican vs CofE.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875