1: Arafat is not dead (at least not yet). However, his doctor has said his condition is worsening.

2: If you think Arafat's death will be the beginning of the end of violence between Israel and Palestine, you are sorely mistaken. Far from being the "author" of terrorist actions, he has tried (some will say without much effort) to stop Palestinian terrorist actions. Suicide bombings are desperate acts by oppressed peoples who have no conventional army. Does this make it right? No. But we must understand the true nature of terrorism if we are to stop it. So long as Palestinians feel they are denied the right to rule themselves, they will act out in violence, no matter who they look to as their leader.

Kyle - that's straight up BULLSHIT! No matter how hard you try, terrorism can not be justified! The true nature of terrorism is hatred. There, now you know!

Yasser Arafat is not dead, despite your wishful thinking. When he does die, the Israelis will wish they could find another Palestinian leader as moderate.

You really should keep vicious death wishes on that hate site you call a blog.

Vicious death wishes... against Arafat? After all he's been responsible for, you're kidding, right?

Arafat's contributions to world peace (not)

Vic

"Kyle - that's straight up BULLSHIT! No matter how hard you try, terrorism can not be justified! The true nature of terrorism is hatred. There, now you know!"

Perhaps you didn't read my post. Here it is again. Pay close attention to the section in CAPS.

1: Arafat is not dead (at least not yet). However, his doctor has said his condition is worsening.

2: If you think Arafat's death will be the beginning of the end of violence between Israel and Palestine, you are sorely mistaken. Far from being the "author" of terrorist actions, he has tried (some will say without much effort) to stop Palestinian terrorist actions. Suicide bombings are desperate acts by oppressed peoples who have no conventional army. DOES THIS MAKE IT RIGHT? NO. But we must understand the true nature of terrorism if we are to stop it. So long as Palestinians feel they are denied the right to rule themselves, they will act out in violence, no matter who they look to as their leader.

Vic, I am curious about something. Why are Bible thumping 'Christians' seemingly the biggest haters in the world? We saw it when they used the Bible to justify slavery and discrimination based on race. When they used religion to claim women are second-class citizens. Again, in the political race decided on disdain for gay people by the holier than thou Tuesday. Here, on this thread, with people wishing a moderate leader of an oppressed people into an earlier grave. (Which, incidentally, doesn't mean the same folks aren't anti-Semitic. They just have a use for Jews in their end time scheme.) As a Right Wing Christian, I gather you know what is going on. Do explain.

1] You're right. He's not dead- still waiting on it.
2] You can't dampen my enthusiam to se him leave the world stage. Even St. Clinton regarded Arafat as his "biggest failure" in the world because he would not renounce terror.

L'Chaim! To Life!!!

"You can't dampen my enthusiam to se him leave the world stage."

Now that's one of the saddest things I've heard today. When we resort to the same kind of hatred for which we condemn our enemies, we have lost. To derive joy from another person's death, no matter what their crime, is contemptible. L'Chaim, indeed.

Mac,

I'm not embedded deeply in the mainstream of politics OR Christianity. I just have my opinions like anyone else, which are colored by my experiences. Another flaw of mine is that since I'm not a patient kind of guy, I don't sit back and analyze what I've written much before hitting the "Post" button, so I'm sure there are exploitable flaws in my posts.

Also, I'm not "Right Wing"... I don't even know what that really means. I consider myself conservative. When I was younger I was a Liberal/Democrat and for me the turning point was the birth of my daughter, which was a life changing event that made me look at things very differently from how I had previously.

I'm not much of a student of history (always been more of a science guy), so I cannot speak to the points you stated about past issues, except to say that in any group of people one will find close-minded and ignorant people.

I know that there are tons of "Sundays-only" Christians/Catholics out there (having been raised in such a household myself). People who are pious at church but then leave it at the door on the way home and until next Sunday. Some of the past items you mention could be related to that.

There's a misconception out there that it's easy to be a Christian... let me tell you it's easier to *not* be one. I think the main difference between Christians and Secularists is that Christians are *aware* of their shortcomings as human beings, and see these shortcomings and weaknesses as such, and something to strive to overcome. I don't want to paint with a broad brush here, and I've mentioned that many who purport to believe pay it lip service only, just as I believe that there are tons of non-believers who *are* aware of their weaknesses.

I'm not a Bible scholar, and I don't know if the source of homosexuality is nature or nurture, or if it is the former for some cases and the latter for others. People say "God made gay people too." My view is that there is a spiritual battle going on and most people are blind to it. Everybody talks about "God this" and "God that" but very rarely do I hear anyone talk about the influence that Satan might have on the world at large. I would think that instead of saying that God makes gay people that instead Satan turns people to that side. I am absolutely not saying that gay people are evil, and I bloody well mean that. Working in the background and having people deny his existence makes his work much easier, and the closer one tries to get to God the bigger the target on their chest.

To me, the issue with gay unions is the effect it has on traditional marriage as the preferred environment for raising children. My interpretation of what's happened in Scandanavia is that legitimizing gay marriage has eroded traditional marriage and there more and more couples are having children out of wedlock now.

People talk about the divorce statistics, but I have yet to see any data on the breakup percentage of unwed parents of children. I'm betting it's much higher, and it leaves broken children in it's wake.

So to me at least, it's not about hating gays, it's about saving marriage and children.

I'm sure my rambling reply won't satisfy you, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

Vic

P.S. I am of course expecting the inevitable rude, angry, non-witty repostes from some of the less rational visitors of the site.

I would think that instead of saying that God makes gay people that instead Satan turns people to that side. I am absolutely not saying that gay people are evil, and I bloody well mean that.

Perhaps. But what you ARE saying is that homosexuality is the work of the devil. Basically, homosexuals aren't evil, but homosexuality is. Not much better, if you ask me, because then it's just a hop step on over to the conclusion that the pratcitioner of evil is, of course, him/herself evil.

As for gay marriage in Scandinavia, I'm not sure how more people getting married somehow convinces other people to stop getting married. Not that marriage is inherently good or bad, either. Some marriages are good, some bad.

What children seem to want the most is stability. Heterosexual couples who divorce at a rate of 50% in the US are doing a fine job of taking that stability away all on their own. They don't need homosexuals to threaten their own family's stability.

No matter how you shake it, the Bible has, as MD pointed out, been used to demonize many groups of "undesirable" people throughout history. Gay men and women are just one of the last remaining "fair" targets of that demonization.

Vic, I can understand that your perspective comes from saving marriage, I would disagree with it, but I know what you are trying to say. My own ideology, having read your link, and having firsthand experience with the relationship-seeking part of the gay community, I come up with a different analogy as to the breakdown in marriage over there. If you've ever seen a steamy french movie that leaves you scratching your head afterwards, if you've ever walked along the Mediterranean beaches, then you know the whole mindset over there is far different than over here. The church is powerful over there but much more puritan over here. I would think the cultural mindset which includes allowing gay marriages is also one that would tolerate diversities in heterosexual families too, meaning lack of marriage license or many more sexually open relationships than here. Berlin, Amsterdam, etc. they all have huge sex clubs, hemp selling coffee shops are common. I don't see the correlation you do, between two men getting married and a woman deciding to have a child out of wedlock beyond it all being part of a bigger cultural mindset.

Anyway, I have a question for you. Since you are one of the three conservatives willing to open up and discuss rationally, I'd like to take advantage of the opportunity.

Assuming your argument that acknowledging the relationship between a same-sex couple, deteroriates the value heterosexuals place on their own relationships, then I take it you are against civil unions too? If you are for them, then are you for them completely except for the word marriage? Will calling it civil unions but having it be exactly the same as marriage keep heterosexuals valuing their relationships? Or does a civil union need to be inferior for heterosexuals to appreciate marriage?

I don't mean to sound condescending at all, it's a serious question, I don't know how else to word it.

oh, Vic, also, in reference to your 'think of Satan' thought.

You had mentioned previously that you weren't sure if homosexuality was nurture or nature.

If you think it might be the work of the devil then you clearly think it is the former and not the latter. You might just not realize you have already made that decision.

And so what we have here is a conservative telling me that condemnation of me comes from the concept of good vs. evil - Satan, and so when I talk about a theocracy, other conservatives tell me I am engaging in hyperbole and rhetoric. Perhaps conservatives should look up the word theocracy.

Arafat still alive, but on his way out.

Arafat as "moderate"? This is preposterous - the only "moderation" he has shown has been to tighten his own grip on power, which he has made very clear over the years is his only concern, period. He had a chance to go down in history as a statesman and he rejected the opportunity in favor of strengthening and prolonging his autocratic, corrupt, cynical, manipulative, murderous, disingenuous reign.

His departure can ONLY benefit the peace process, even if a less "moderate" leadership temporarily gains the upper hand - the abject failure of such a leadership will put the Palestinian's most unreasonable demands and aspirations to rest.

And as to "understanding" the underlying causes of terror: this is an absurd self-abnegating, death-worship culture - that's the underlying cause. when the Palestinians and Islamists in general choose to celebrate life rather than salivate over the prospect of a "glorious" death, they will seek a practical solution to their predicament.

Eric: So, in other words, if only the cultures of the rest of the world were more like ours, we could all get along better. How delightfully ethnocentric.

People don't sacrifice themselves simply because they belong to a "death-worshipping" culture. Self-sacrifice requires belief in a higher cause, a belief that there is something worth dying for. In the case of the Palestinians, this cause is the desire for a free Palestinian state.

And now, once again, I must make a disclaimer lest I am accused of justifying, excusing, or condoning terrorism. MURDER OF ANY KIND IS WRONG. Period. To stop terrorist action (which is what we all want), we must understand WHY people are willing to blow themselves up. Retribution is not a deterrant to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for what they PERCEIVE to be a just cause.

Kyle, the short answer to your first paragraph is "yes," since the ideals we espouse are also shared by the UN.

And I fear you have the rest almost exactly reversed: expression of a "desire for a free Palestinian state" is just an excuse for the expression of a death-worshipping culture

And I fear you have the rest almost exactly reversed: expression of a "desire for a free Palestinian state" is just an excuse for the expression of a death-worshipping culture

So the Palestinians don't really care about losing their land and their right to self-determination?

I guess I wouldn't know, but that just doesn't sound plausible to me. But then I never bought all those stories about Satan worshippers sacrificing babies either.

That was a better response than I expected, Vic. Shows a person thinking and weighing. I hope you are going to blog it. People need some insight into what is going on with the religious now -- before some of them start burning some of us at the stake.

But that said, I can't fathom the Satan thing at all. It strikes me as displacement or projection. A way for humans to do wrong and wipe their hands of responsibility for it. Give me the duality of human nature instead. At least that puts the responsibilty where I think it belongs.

I understand Eric Olsen's position in regard to Yasser Arafat. He would like to see a 'final solution' to the Palestinian problem. Arafat has stood in the way, so, it is a good thing he is dying to persons who think like that. But, observed objectively, and viewed through the comparative prism of world history, Arafat will go down in history as a moderate leader. There were efforts to discredit Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela very similar to those to discredit Arafat. In time he will be perceived as the moderate he is. Standing in the way of genocide is not the awful thing Olsen and his ilk think it is. Nor is genocide the good thing they think it is.

And I fear you have the rest almost exactly reversed: expression of a "desire for a free Palestinian state" is just an excuse for the expression of a death-worshipping culture.

I just reread that and my (sand colored, incidentally) skin is crawling. It is the same rationale used to enslave Africans and eradicate indigenes. Their cultures (usually also meaning persons) were 'inferior.' That was justification for slavery, segregation and genocide. I believe that at their most benign, what people like Olsen have in mind for those 'inferior' Palestinians is an arrangement like apartheid South Africa. Telling.

I am certain that Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela are flattered by the comparison.

The problem is the Palestinian leadership, of which Arafat is the most prominent and hence destructive figure. The terrorist leadership has fostered the cult of death toward its own aims of power and venality. What needs to be cleared out is the leadership and the destructive, fatalistic culture, not the people themselves.

And why on earth would you choose skin color as a source of commonality with the Palestinians? I do not identify with every white person on earth - what a bizarre notion.

It could have something to do with skin color often having been a proxy for who was oppressed and who was oppressing.

You insult three great men by implying they would join you in dehumanizing an oppressed people. To anyone not vested in Zionism, it is not even difficult to see who is oppressed and who is the oppressor in this situation.

The 'problem' is always with the leadership of oppressed people to hear the oppressors tell it. That is because they don't want them to have any leadership at all. (And, no, puppet leaders controlled by the oppressors, your next gambit, don't count.) You don't ask the torturer of a tortured person what his needs are. You ask the person himself. The Palestinians have answered.

Earlier today I saw someone else's post, maybe from Instapundit, that Arafat's death will lead to an internecine struggle for "succession" of PLO rule. This would not surprise me as Arafat's current PLO is much different from the PLO of the '60's.
The Palestinians do have some legitimate complaints, but have recently chsne the wrong way to address them.
If Sharon successfully closes down settelements, I will be interested to see what the Palestinians will do.

The Palestinians do have some legitimate complaints, but have recently chosen the wrong way to address them.

Very true. It's just not clear what other avenue they were likely to choose given that they had to fight for their own land against an better-armed, better-funded, better-educated and better-connected opponent.

If Sharon successfully closes down settelements, I will be interested to see what the Palestinians will do.

Keep in mind, he's only closing down some of the settlements in Gaza so he can consolidate and possibly expand the settlements in the West Bank. As I understand it, the Israelis are surrounding Jerusalem with settlements to such an extent as to cut off the rest of the West Bank from its putative capitol, thus making a Palestinian state all but an impossibility.

Basically, homosexuals aren't evil, but homosexuality is. Not much better, if you ask me, because then it's just a hop step on over to the conclusion that the pratcitioner of evil is, of course, him/herself evil.

BHW,

No, it's not a hop-step. For Christians that is a HUGE leap and a BIG difference.

Vic

Assuming your argument that acknowledging the relationship between a same-sex couple, deteroriates the value heterosexuals place on their own relationships, then I take it you are against civil unions too? If you are for them, then are you for them completely except for the word marriage? Will calling it civil unions but having it be exactly the same as marriage keep heterosexuals valuing their relationships? Or does a civil union need to be inferior for heterosexuals to appreciate marriage?

Boomcrash,

First, thanks for continuing this as a rational discussion. If there's one thing that turns me off on this site it's the knee-jerk emotional tone of most of the comments.

I am not opposed to the concept of civil unions for gays (although I believe some Christians are). I think that those who *are* committed to long term relationships should have access to the same *legal* rights of a married couple. To be honest, I don't really know what the difference would be beyond the name of the union. Even if I believe that homosexuality is wrong, as you pointed out I may have already made a decision on the nature or nurture aspect of it. I think it's ignorant to turn a blind eye to the situation and act as if gays are less than human. That's just stupid, because homosexuals exist and they are people too.

Christians try to condemn the sinner, but the sin. It can be difficult to separate the two, as we are as human as anyone else. :-)

I have a much easier time with that concept as applies to homosexuality as opposed to a murderer or rapist.

Vic

That was a better response than I expected, Vic. Shows a person thinking and weighing. I hope you are going to blog it.

Suprised you, did I? Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions about people, hmmm? :-) BTW, my blog site is about TV and movies so that particular post is not a good fit.

People need some insight into what is going on with the religious now -- before some of them start burning some of us at the stake.

I think part of what is happening is a backlash to what's happened in our country over the past 20 years with the overabundance of sex everywhere, and a lot of it targeted at young teens. I was watching "The Apprentice" the other night and I was flabbergasted that one of the contestants said that an ad campaign to recruit NYC police officers absolutely HAD to be sexy. Is it no longer possible to sell something without sex any more?

But that said, I can't fathom the Satan thing at all. It strikes me as displacement or projection. A way for humans to do wrong and wipe their hands of responsibility for it. Give me the duality of human nature instead. At least that puts the responsibilty where I think it belongs.

That is indeed a slippery slope. I do believe that we are "influenced" to stray from the path, but the pesky thing about being human is this small thing called "free will". In the end we decide whether to succumb or not. So although I believe we are influenced, in the end it is the individual's decision to go right or wrong.

BTW, I certainly don't believe that Eric wants a "final solution" in regards to the Palestinians. I am stunned however that you can ignore the atrocities that can be traced back to Arafat and put him in the same company as King Jr and Ghandi! If it wasn't for Arafat there would have (possibly) been a resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict during Clinton's administration. Everyone was prepared to sign off on it until he purposely threw in some unreasonable demands to throw a wrench into the entire process.

On a final note, I am enjoying this level-headed, rational, and polite thread to no end. It's actually freaking me out a bit. ;-)

Vic

Well, Vic, it looks like civil unions probably should have been the way to go, I dunno. I know the separate but equal rulings of the past caused a lot of people to wonder how it would turn out. I had a link, but lost it, about a YMCA in North Carolina (I think), that was going to allow same-sex families to have discounts but at a different rate than heterosexual families. Previously, it was more expensive, after they got done modifying it, the same sex families actually get a cheaper rate. I thought it was crazy, why can't we all just be the same? I've said months back that personally, we (this household) would be happy with civil unions. I support the fight for marriage though as well. Should it become legal, we just want to go to city hall and fill out the paperwork. No church, no announcement in the paper, we've already had our moments, I just want to be able to fill out insurance forms, pay any tax penalities, and have the legal protections for my family and property just like anybody else. If John and Mary down the street want to fill their dinner conversation with how I am a pawn of Satan, that is certainly okay with me.

I know people have their values and their faith, but I don't know what happened to this country, since the 60's-70's. Somewhere along the way people got to feeling that the only way they can keep their faith, is if the government endorses it. And I'm not just talking about homosexuality, but the pledge, plaques in federal courthouses, public school criteria, etc.

I'm not sure why so many people feel so weak about their own inner faith. I also still don't understand why you think gay marriage would deteroriate heterosexual marriages, but if we just switch the word, not the benefits, then things are going to be okay. But maybe it is just beyond my comprehension how you all define your relationships.