Yeah, we’re fighting for freedom in Iraq.
Gays are just the start it sounds like. If the Iraqi government can’t stop these fanatics in the police and military, they’ll end up with a religiously controlled country like Afganistan was. But since they will sell us oil, I guess that’s OK. Sorry executed poeple.
Gays flee as religious militias sentence them all to death
The death threat was delivered to Karazan’s father early in the morning by a masked man wearing a police uniform.
The scribbled note was brief. Karazan had to die because he was gay. In the new Baghdad, his sexuality warranted execution by the religious militias.
The father was told that if he did not hand his son over, other family members would be killed.
What scares the city’s residents is how the fanatics’ list of enemies is growing. It includes girls who refuse to cover their hair, boys who wear theirs too long, booksellers, liberal professors and prostitutes. Three shops known to sell alcohol were bombed yesterday in the Karrada shopping district.
Here’s the real problem. The government can’t control squat.
A ministry spokesman said that the Government did not condone vigilante groups. However, Nouri al-Malaki, the Prime Minister-designate, has conceded that the Iraqi security forces have been infiltrated by militia extremists.
…
“These people are taking Iraq back to the Dark Ages,” added Mr Hili, 33.
As a right wing nutzo – I have a problem with it. I firmly believe that homosexuality is wrong, but this is just as wrong.
Only a government has the right to properly try, convict and punish someone, for any assumed crime or wrongdoing. Otherwise people just start killing anyone they assume is one thing or another.
Proper due process according to a properly institued law with properly defined consequences is the only way to do any punishments.
Apart from self-protection, which should be well defined in any society, people don’t have the right to kill or otherwise maim people.
Was this stuff going on when Saddam had control of the country? Religious fundamentalists must by controlled by a dictator, not a democratic government. The leader must be ruthless in order to control these fucking animals by the only idea they understand: FEAR. Bring back Saddam Hussein to power.
I think the Iraqi vigilantes finally received Jerry Falwell’s fatwa.
Ah, the inane ramblings of idiots. No offence, or maybe some offence, but comparing these people to Jerry Falwell is insane. Maybe I missed something, but I’ve never once heard Falwell call for Christians to rise up and kill people. He might wish to change the government to what he wants it to be, but so does EVERYONE.
As to bringing back Saddam, anyone so crazy as to actually think that isn’t worth the air they breathe. You might disagree with many things about going to war, the war, the way it was handled, intellegence, etc. But to think Saddam would be better is the height of an amoral mind with no common sense or ability to to make judgment calls.
I sure hope you were being sarcastic, but I fear you were not.
Tim Champ, why is it wrong to be born as God made them? Is it also wrong to be born with breasts and male genetelia, or any other genetic based physical or mental problems?
While the overthrow of Saddam was the “real” reason for this insane war (at least that’s the current meme, and we ain’t gonna change it – unless we have to, again) [yes, that was sarcasm Tim], it’s a little hard to ignore that we have opened a Pandora’s Box where the quality of liffe of the ordinary Iraqi is worse than it was under Saddam. And spiraling downwards.
Pointing this out doesn’t mean I support the return of Saddam (at this point that would unleash even more horrors). It does mean I would like Americans to hold the neocons running our country accountable for terminal stupidity and war crimes.
“I’ve never once heard Falwell call for Christians to rise up and kill people” Well Tim, he has in fact suggested it. He let the bible say it for him by quoting this…
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. ”
#5 Tim wrote (so rudely my feelings were hurt) “Maybe I missed something, but I’ve never once heard Falwell call for Christians to rise up and kill people.”
I don’t have time to catch you up on everything you’ve missed, but I’ll leave you with this. In an appearance on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, I heard Falwell say, “We’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops, and I’m for the President to chase them all over the world, if it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”
What part of Jesus’ instruction doesn’t Falwell understand? “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
You’re right about one thing, though, Tim. Falwell didn’t call for Christians to kill anyone. He called for the President to do it instead.
Questions. If you impose a democracy in a country and that country votes in “free” elections to have a dictator religious fundamentalist as their leader, what’s the problem? The people have spoken!
Sorry, I just realized how selfish it was of me not to share the video of Jerry Falwell with everyone. It’s quite funny, and taken from a Daily Show “This Week in God” segment…
http://www.garymarks.com/video/Jerry.Falwell/Jerry.Falwell.htm
(requires Flash v8 player in your browser)
Never let it be said I didn’t share my things.
Bush and Co have managed to turn a brilliant military success into another Vietnam.
Is it really appropriate to use gay rights as a litmus test on the state of a country’s democracy and freedom? In case of democracy, you can’t really make a solid argument, because in a democracy, majority wins. And in case of Iraq (HUGE majority Mulims), they are not very fond of gays. But as for freedom, there is always the eternal struggle between state laws and human rights. Even the most “liberal” of countries have laws that can be argued as being an infringement of human rights. So, what a country’s gay rights status tell at most is the religious and cultural tendacies of a country and to what extent these tendancies are merged together with the country’s laws.
Gay rights is popularly used becasue it is one of the more provocative rights that can clearly divide the “free thinkers” from the “religious”. It has been comfortably used by liberals as a litmus test whereby anobody who is against homosexuality are “religious fanatics”. It seems that the gay guy has been the poster child of freedom. To be free is accept people who like having d*cks shoved up their a** together with those who like to do the shoving. Issues like freedom to take drugs, where in some European countries is almost a non-issue, aren’t used because there are divisions inside the “liberal” crowd themselves on these issues.
Does spreading democracy also means spreading homosexuality? Democracy is to let people decide for themselves, and if the people choose not to accept homosexuality, so be it. If that doen’t satisfy the “democracy spreaders” and they want the democracy to include a culture filled with their point of view on things, then its not democracy they are spreading, it’s an idealogoy.
Fantastic. I love how, in America, you can say anything you want – it’s such a free country. You can talk about killing half-born babies, and that’s cool. You can publish pictures of women doing unspeakable things to animate and inanimate objects. Hell, you can even go on national TV and say that a certain country has WMDs when they don’t.
But for the love of John, don’t say anything negative about a homosexual or homosexuality! Then you are a pariah!
Listen – I think we can all agree that killing homosexuals is a Bad Thing(tm). I didn’t read Tim’s original comment as equating homosexuality with murder.
Like most issues that don’t involve bodycounts, homosexuality is a nuanced issue with a lot of debatable points. Just once in the life of this country, I’d like to see it addressed without one or both sides of the debate taking personal offense. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen plenty of the anti-Homosexuality crowd’s idiocy when it comes to these debates, but even when a level headed anti-Homosexuality person comes to the table to discuss the facts and the issues, I’ve absolutely NEVER seen a person on the pro-Homosexuality side of the table take anything in stride. Invariably it devolves to personal attacks and moronic behavior.
That said, how hard would it be to read the above article, and then discuss philosophy and strategy on what could actually be done to restrict religious fanaticism without restricting the rights of the people? Is it possible? What if we replaced the word homosexual with the word alcoholic (just to pick a random word). I’m sure these fanatics don’t like alcoholics or something, and it’s a relatively non-politically charged affliction/condition/set of behavior.
Do you think we could talk rationally at that point?
“Questions. If you impose a democracy in a country and that country votes in “free” elections to have a dictator religious fundamentalist as their leader, what’s the problem? The people have spoken!”
Well, #10, there’s the problem. Democracy often boils down to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. In other words, democracy as in majority rule, by itself, is not the answer. That’s why we in the USA have (well, used to anyway) the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And even with those, we had legal slavery for almost 100 years!
Dave
Yes Bruce, God is a gay basher. In fact the bible says that even being effeminate can get you stoned to death. So guys, if you like pink. you’re a stay at home dad, you’re never agressive or ready for a fight, and you don’t scratch your ass or pee on the toilet seat…. watch your back. You’re on the list too.
As a Christian I believe in taking the Bible literally, including the part that says not to take it literally.
Romans7:4-6:
“4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”
Gay people are people and they should get the same treatment as everyone else. The Bible is not against gays. The Christian church is not against gays. Only bigots are.
#5. “But to think Saddam would be better is the height of an amoral mind with no common sense or ability to to make judgment calls.”
Tim, you have to answer one question: Is Iraq a better, safer and more liveable place now that the U.S. is occupying it or when Saddam was occupying it?
You are right about my mind, it IS Amoral, as opposed to IMmoral.
rizzn, good points. Your random example of changing the word “homosexual” with “alcoholic” is a bad choice, although I understand it wasn’t intentional. The problem in that type of comparison leads to misunderstandings. For instance, alcoholism is destructive to one’s self and often destructive to others. An alcoholic is dangerous to society It can also be treated. Homosexual behavior has none of those traits. You can’t argue for Aids, because Aids is also transmitted hetrosexually.
Problems with homosexuality are purely self originating. The problems arise from another persons inability to deal with the inconsistencies of normal genetic variations through the very complex process of reproduction. If I were born with one breast I could have it removed, and I wouldn’t be subject to the intolerance of people like estacado. Unfortunately, homosexuality manifests itself completely throughout the human body… feminine features, behavior and desires for men, and masculine features, behavior and desires for women. There is no way to “fix” this through modern medicine or procedures.
Regressive behavior such as what estacado is exhibiting can be treated however.
#16
That’s the other side of democracy… you can’t foist it on a people. They have to come to it organically…
Saddam Hussein kept all the fundamentalists under lock and key… literally. Hell, Christians had holidays under his rule. Before that, Christians were chased out of town, girls were beaten for not wearing traditional robes, etc… And don’t ask for proof, it’s why my parents left in the 50’s…
Anyhoo, I said to my parents as soon as the US takes out Saddam and installs “democracy” the Christians are going to lose because the majority are ignorant Muslim fundamentalists. And when you have a majority, you will the elections. Iraq wasn’t ready. But, from the US cynical view, the more enemies you have, the more justification to stay. Can you imagine how much of a blow to US interests it would be if the people of Iraq set up a stable, robust, secular government, and then nationalized their oil reserves?
#17. God is a homosexual, too. In His own words he writes about a fantasy of seeing Noah getting a blow job from his son! :
From The Holy Bible, written by God, Genesis Ch. 9:
———————————————————————————————
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
———————————————————————————————-
“What his younger son had DONE UNTO HIM”
Remember, Noah was laying NAKED and DRUNK.
To clarify a couple things:
1) The Bible clearly speaks that the government has the right and responsiblity to punish wrong doing. Read Romans 13 if you so desire. So for Dr. Falwell to call on the president to punish the wrongdoers is within Christian doctrine. If he called on Christians directly to do so, that would be wrong and I would oppose it.
2)There is a difference between being homosexual and committing homosexual acts. The Bible only condemns the act, not the person. Notice in the passages that it says that if a man “lies with a man as he does with a woman” that he was to be put to death. Also, there is the concept of grace. Grace doesn’t mean we accept any and all sin, but it does include the belief in change and forgiveness. I would say the execution for homosexual acts would be only in extreme circumstances. Even King David murdered a man only to be forgiven by God. Alas, in God’s realm, sin is sin. Murder and a “white lie” are all sin. In government and socieities, though, punishments are not the same for all crimes.
3) Thirdly there is a huge difference between a dictator forced upon people and one they have chosen. I’ll be the first to grant that it was underestimated the ingrained lack of ability for democracy that Iraq’s people have. It is sad that they cannot conceive of the very freedom we wished to give them (I know, I know, it was WMD, which I am still convinced he had, and we know he used to and was capable of it again). There is a limit to what a government can and should legislate. Although I believe homosexual acts to be wrong, a government should not limit the right of those in favor thereof to redress their grievances (1st amendment).
Lastly, as I head out for now, there is a fine line in government. While rights must be protected, people also must realize that certain things are in and of themselves contradictory to those rights. We can’t allow a murderer or thief to exercise their freedom in those ways. We limit freedom each day on things we as a society have said should be limited. The debate comes when people feel things should be limited that are not or vice versa. Hence the “gay marriage” debate or the debate on “gun rights”. These are conflicting sides of an issue both attempting to be the one that decides the policy for the whole of a nation. It’s the way it works.
As has been said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other types. It’s not perfect, nothing is.
# 14: Of course, homosexuality and “gay rights” is a “litmus test on the state of a country’s democracy and freedom”.
Homosexuality is not, and never has been, an issue of majorities. It has to be accepted as a matter of fact. You can’t abolish homosexuality, as you can’t do with blue eyes.
Of course, a stupid/brutal majority can decide to have it punished. This would only reveal the stupidity and brutality of such a society.
BTW: Would you accept majority decisions on jailing or killing people with red hair or short legs?
David… they “covered the nakedness of their father” without looking at him because the punishment for that would be…you guessed it… being stoned to death… and not by cannabis.
Milo, your quote from Romans 7:4-6 refers to the law of the spirit – after you are dead – as opposed to the written law of the bible, before you are dead. Romans (in full context) basically says that whatever you do with your body is sinful… specifying sexual copulation as bad in order to propagate which is good. Once you are dead you are free from your sinful body (that god created as such by the way) so that we are free to “serve in the new way of the Spirit”. But while you are alive you are to follow the written law to the letter or be damned!
Nowhere in the Bible does it say not to take it literally. But if you do you’ll become the man with the gun blowing the brains out of homosexuals.
to 21: Jim… I understand that. In my word substitution, I was not trying to intimate that homosexuality was in any way akin to alcoholism in any sense. I was trying to come up with a random word/condition/behavioral pattern that would be innocuous but still be hated by religious fanatics in Iraq.
to 22: name… I don’t necessarily agree with that. Truely, I think self rule is an innate in all people. The question is rather would Iraq be better served by a parlaimentary government or something more republican in nature. Parlaimentary is in my opinion a better form of government in terms of recognizing small interests, but a republic might be somewhat less chaotic – something Iraq could use a bit of there.
to 20: wkw … yes, I understand the difference between free speech and inflamatory speech. yours is an example of inflamatory speech – serving no interest but distracting from the debate at hand.
Jim(R): The passage I quoted is clearly talking about people who are alive (“my brothers” “we”) and the death is the death of Christ, who we believe we share one body with.
But what you say proves once again that Christian ‘liberals’ are the most despised of all. Most Christians don’t like us for being ‘liberal’
and most other people don’t like us for being Christian.
#26 Tim, just as I feared, you haven’t read your Bible very carefully. (I’ll only reply to your point #1) Romans 13 claims no such “right and responsiblity to punish wrong doing” (your overreaching words). Paul was counseling Christians who were dominated by the Roman empire, telling them not to be afraid of those who ruled them. He wrote “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and therefore seen as a force for good, only feared when you do evil. He even says, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” However, you’ll see that his teachings really come off the track when you apply them more generally throughout history. The Romans were heavy-handed enough in that time, but apparently Paul didn’t foresee such rulers as Hitler, Stalin, et al. If you accept Paul’s words, then King George III was ordained of God even in his domination of the colonies, so the American revolution goes against Paul’s teachings because our forefathers failed to obey the “powers that be.” Hell of a way to found a Christian nation, wouldn’t you say?
If you were a serious Bible student, I’m sure you would have noticed something else, but your post indicates that you missed it. At no place during his dissertation does Paul envision or address the Christians as being in the position of power in the governmental sense — they’re always the dominated ones. That has a few implications if you think about it, not the least of which is a lack of any mandate for assuming governmental power.
When in doubt, Tim, you can’t go wrong if you simply follow Jesus’ explicit teaching from the Sermon on the Mount — they’re powerful words! When you stray too far, you ought to think about finding a new name for your religion. But I’ll give you credit for getting one thing right. You maintained the distinction between a Christian and the President. Likewise, George Bush has never had trouble making that distinction in his actions — only in his rhetoric.
milo, I don’t despise you at all; nor am I a Christian. I was brought up in a Roman Catholic household, and went to separate catholic schools until grade 9. Fortunately for me, the catholic brainwashing didn’t take.
I do however regard you as been deceived, probably from a very young age. This is not a judgement of your intelligence and you seem like a nice person. The main problem I have with religion is that it is forced upon the very young developing minds when the essence of “self” is forming. This is done because if left to their own common sense and intelligence at a mature age, most of those born into religion would be able to see the nonsensical, contradicting, and archaic ideology within the bible. They would also be able to do research with unmanipulated free will. They would find as I have, that the Bible is not an accurate representation of the past, and is more a collection of altered and enhanced short stories with some historical facts thrown in for good measure… not unlike “The Da Vinci Code”.
Jim(R): I didn’t say that you despised me. You are not reading things carefully. As to what I and many in my church think about the Bible etc:
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/
Unlike the Bishop that this links to above I prefer to use the literal word of scripture to justify how it can be reinterpreted.
Few are aware that my church endorses reason in its laws and that there are others like it.
The RCC brainwashing has worked quite well on you and many because you leave the RCC and never support another church. They structure things that way because they want you in or not supporting the competition if you’re out.
#26. “There is a difference between being homosexual and committing homosexual acts”.
This is true. I have committed homosexual acts but I am not homosexual. And you probably have too, but do not realize it. I’ll explain.
An anus is an anus whether it is fitted on the rear of a male or a female. There is no difference therefore they are equal. If you have ever had female anal sex then, by equivalence, you have had MALE anal sex. Therefore you have committed an homosexual act. The tipping point is IF you were thinking of a man when you had anal sex (whether with a woman or a man). If you were, then you are homosexual. Regardless, if you ever had anal sex with your girlfriend then you have committed an homosexual act.
Only a government has the right to properly try, convict and punish someone, for any assumed crime or wrongdoing. Otherwise people just start killing anyone they assume is one thing or another.
Now I thought only God has the right to try and punish. Isn’t there a Commandment suggesting “thou shalt not kill”. I didn’t read any qualifiers about in certain cases. Only, thou shalt not kill.