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

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



Message


farglebargle -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 11:14:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nagatzhul2

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Bush NEVER had to sign a single spending bill which reached his desk... He DID sign them, so it's not just the Libs fault spending is up. And since they weren't controlling the process until recently, I'm curious how exactly ONLY the Libs own the Trillion Dollar Debt for the War.


That was my point, he did sign them and that is why I have an issue with him. However, he could not have signed what the libs didn't present, could he? And the libs were the ones who attached the riders to most of the expensive bills.

Everyone owns the debt for the war, they all voted for it. Only Ron Paul objected to it, if I remember correctly. They all own it, not just Bush.



You *are* aware that the RNC was calling the shots in Congress up until this January?

I'm unsure how you're pretending to hang the actions of the RNC and Bush for the prior 6 years on the DNC...

NOTHING left Congress without the RNC stamp-of-approval. You got a problem with the legislation? You gotta hold the RNC accountable.





SimplyMichael -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/26/2007 7:37:24 AM)

quote:

Everyone owns the debt for the war, they all voted for it. Only Ron Paul objected to it, if I remember correctly. They all own it, not just Bush


Doesn't seem you remember much correctly but what else can you expect from your ilk.




philosophy -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/26/2007 10:44:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nagatzhul2


Personally, I can't take any one seriously who is NOT religous. How can you take anyone seriously who can't see reality? .........................Now, I don't force my religion on anyone, but the idea that someone can not be taken seriously because they are religous is simply an ad hominem attack, nothing more.



.....interesting logic. Turn your last sentence around, to not take someone seriously because they don't believe in God is surely just as much an ad hominem attack as the opposite.
Oh, and for the record, the point of my original post on this thread was to contrast the beliefs of the ABC with GWB in response to post 33 of this thread. If someone like subrob wants to discount the words of the ABC because he prays then he must, by the same logic, discount the words of GWB. Please try to keep up.
As for your assertion that a belief in God is merely a belief in reality (and therefore not an exercise in faith) then i am sure that, as an honourable man, you can provide incontrovertible proof and thus do something that theologians have tried and failed to do for centuries....or did you mean subjective reality, ie yours? Because enforcing your subjective reality on others is in direct controversion of your statement that you don't force your religion on others.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/26/2007 12:29:37 PM)

~F.R.~
The target audience of the interview:
quote:

Asked in an interview with the Muslim lifestyle magazine... (Originally sited source)


Personal Perspective given September after the September 11th attack on NYC documented in a a book he wrote, 'Writing in the Dust', offering reflections on the event. He claimed that terrorists "... can have serious moral goals". He rationalizes their actions; "It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable."
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/15/wbish15.xml )


The self description of the ABC: "...a self-professed "hairy lefty," a Christian socialist." (Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630227,00.html )

Documented hypocrisy regarding homosexuals in the Anglican Church:
quote:

Until July 2003, Williams seemed prepared to make Canon Jeffrey John, an openly gay man in a committed, celibate relationship, a bishop. But after a tremendous outcry on the right, Williams held a six-hour meeting with John, who withdrew his candidacy. Williams had already called an emergency meeting of the Anglican leadership over the U.S. Episcopal Church's election of Gene Robinson, also gay and in a committed relationship, as bishop of New Hampshire. The months that followed set a pattern. The Americans consecrated Robinson. Williams, facing conservative demands that they leave the Communion, endorsed milder requests such as a promise, for now, to make no more gay bishops and bless no more gay marriages. The Episcopalians made ambiguous gestures of compliance, but in 2006 elected as their presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who had supported Robinson's elevation. Today Williams calls Robinson's election — absent any prior general decision allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships — "bizarre and puzzling." "His heart is where it's always been," says Welsh Archbishop Barry Morgan, a good friend. "His natural sympathies and theological understanding are on the side of those who are gay." And yet Williams insists that churches should not outpace the Communion's consensus. Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630227,00.html  


In the face of Sharia Law enforcement in Saudi Arabia and most recently in the Sudan where a teacher is subject to "only" 40 lashes resulting from naming a stuffed bear, Mohamed:
quote:

A British teacher in Sudan is facing punishment over a child's toy. Because she had committed an "innocent mistake" of letting her pupils' name a teddy bear Mohamed, an act that is said to be insulting the Islamic prophet, a British school teacher was arrested in Sudan and could be facing 40 lashes. Source: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009270829 
...the idea of anything of value coming from a church leader is absurd.

The Pope, the various Ayatollahs and Mullah's, Christian Evangelists, and the ABC; only have the size of their flock to distinguish them from Jim Jones. Worse is what they have in common, they generate hatred from their sheep. They want their followers to offer up their suffering in this world with the promise of an "eternal reward" while themselves living in golden palaces, Lambeth Palace in the case of Dr. Williams, in this one.

A definition of "high moral ground" coming from this source is not worth debating. His agenda, both political and personal, are well documented.

Better to debate the "high moral ground" of any organization, better referenced as 'industry', with religion as is product. Take away the religion industry and thousands who have, or will die, today because of these competing industries, would have a better chance of survival. The "high moral ground" would be the elimination, not of religion or belief, but of these corrupt and immoral businesses.




pinksugarsub -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/26/2007 2:35:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071125/us_nm/religion_anglicans_usa_dc

I think he makes some good points in making a comparison to the British Empire and (not the U.S. but...) the Bush Administration.
I think 70% of Americans want our Troops *out* of Iraq.
One thing about Bush though, he was never a good "listener" and he's a very bad "decider."
How do people like him and Patrick "Patches" Kennedy get into government with their *90* I.Q.'s and questionable academic credentials?
But, I digress.
I wonder at what point the good Archbishop came to the conclusion that Bush's policies no longer had the "moral high ground?"
And does the Archbishop realise that the American People for the most part want nothing to do with Bush's war?
It's not "our policy", it's Bush's policy.
We know that "Empire" and Imperialism never work yet we have Embasseys in almost every country in the world!
Also, I wonder what the good Archbishop considers "the moral high ground" to be exactly?
What say you?


Popeye i agree with You, but would add that puffing up the British Empire and its conduct in India is laughable.  They oppressed native peoples, interfered with native culture, and stripped resources out of India as fast as they could.
 
Sadly that doesn't seem so terribly different from what Bush says we're supposed to be doing in Iraq and Afganistan.
 
pinksugarsub




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.222656E-02