Blogcritics: Comments on Death of a Conservative Autocrat

Comment by Tristan

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:47:14 EDT

ok~~~ not to quibble over a few hundred thousand and which "side" had more murdered on~~ BACK to the Future ..... I mean BIBLE ~~~~~~~~~ and all of it's oh-so-convenient-political-MIS-interpretations as they were ORDERED to be TRANSLATED; ie, as in the "Authorized" King James version~~~~ come on........ talk about "political INPUT" ...!!!!

Comment by RJ

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 04:23:44 EDT

"the ensuing MURDER of over 8 MILLION innocent human beings ~~MORE BY FAR THAN ADOLPH HITLER MURDERED" No, Hitler killed vastly more than that. 6 million were Jews. Millions more were non-Jews. But it added up to more than 8 million...

Comment by Tristan

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:38:29 EDT

never read it my friend ---- thus I have no thoughts on it at all.

Comment by Silas Kain

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:28:21 EDT

So, Tristan. What do you think of the Koran?

Comment by Tristan

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:19:05 EDT

WAIT just a second! All these "quotes" from the "bible" ~~~ ummmm~~~out of the 746 different versions promulgated upon the poor illiterate public over the last 1800 some odd years~~~starting with whatever the 1st "official" version was (and this is back in the days when the only people that COULD READ were either priests or nobility~~nobody else went to "school"--!!!!) ~~ which "Official Version" bible aRE you all "quoting" ~~~ I strongly suspect it is NOT the original manuscripts-----which were in Greek and Aramaic and never compiled together into any version of a unified "book" --- and all these "modern" translations and versions have taken HUGE liberties from the original Aramaic and Greek~~~ just to point to one very popular modern quote: "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" ..........which, by the way, was the quote used to justify the Holy Inquisition for 300 years and the ensuing MURDER of over 8 MILLION innocent human beings ~~MORE BY FAR THAN ADOLPH HITLER MURDERED ....... if you go back to the original Greek and Aramaic manuscripts this was supposed to derive from---you will find the actual word they recently CHOSE to interpret as "WITCH" was actuall "WELL POISONER" -----someone who put poison in someone's well ~~~ nothing the least to do with the term "WITCH" ... I won't get boring and pedantic and tear the entire "book" apart- you all can do that on your own; but pleaseeeee~~~~ give me a break! Most of you are quite well educated---use the wisdom you've been "blessed" with! This is NOT the "Ireffutable Word of God" ...!!!! Pleaseeeeeeeee............... We can't remember exactly what little GW Bush said three days ago exactly~~~and these fools in black robes (who control more capital tha any nation on earth!!!!!) --tell us THIS latest translation 745 versions later is the Irrefutable Word of God........heh ....heh...!!!!!

Comment by Silas Kain

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:35:36 EDT

Queenie, my sweet, I'm starting to bend towards being a Monarchist. Perhaps our head of state should be a Royal and we'll convert the government to a Parliamentary system. Thank you for starting this whole debate, it has been enlightening.

Comment by Scott

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:51:20 EDT

Looks to be Frist vs. Bayh, eh?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:32:57 EDT

did you say something? I was thinking about the '08 election.

Comment by Queenie

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:09:09 EDT

Thank you all for your comments. I don't think the article says that JPII is responsible for the death of Oscar Romero. It says that he could have done more to protect him. It is widely believed that if the Vatican had issued a public backing of Romero's position, then the death squads would not have got the nod from the representatives of the superpower that was funding their agenda. Life-saving sex..... yes, a bit clunky, I admit.... although an interesting concept you must admit!! We refer to ourselves in the third person because we are of royal blood. We are very sorry if it annoys you. Well, no we're not actually. :-) I love the way this comment thread has turned into a Republican-Democrat debate... again. Do you people think of nothing else?? Queenie

Comment by Scott

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:03:22 EDT

Dave - "Not showing up is saying you don't care, that the issue is meaningless to you." Me - "I think not showing up is as good as saying you don't support it." We are in agreement. In the case of Schiavo's law, most Americans believe it was overstepping government's boundaries and driven by political gain rather than personal conviction. So, even though it did pass and Republicans "set the agenda," it served only to make them look like vote-grabbing do-gooders and the mouthpiece of the Christian right. Considering that, skipping the vote seems like a fairly wise move. (and Republicans did not achieve their desired outcome after all)

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:52:16 EDT

>>In the Bible, it calls homosexual behavior a sin.<< It also says that homosexuals should be killed, as I recall. I wonder of JP2 ever considered preaching that message? Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:25:11 EDT

hello Mr. Christopher..i know you used to be a Saint..then we changed it..now you are a Saint again..congratulations.. enjoy that hamburger on Friday...God changed his mind about the whole fish only thing.. oh yes..and Galileo..i know it took 500 years...and i know we excommunicated you...but we now decided we were wrong then and you were right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun.. that's all from the Throne of St. Peter for now ... /end satire Excelsior!

Comment by RJ

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:12:11 EDT

Here's something simple: The Pope is a religious leader. He leads the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a Christian Church. Christians believe the Bible (Old and New) is the WORD OF GOD. In the Bible, it calls homosexual behavior a sin. So, just why exactly should a religious leader, who believes the Bible is the WORD OF GOD, suddenly turn a blind eye to a SIN, simply because a minority of believers no longer think it's such a bad thing? Has the Bible been amended recently, by God? Did I sleep through that? My point, is that a religious leader has an obligation, rooted in his supernatural belief, to follow the WORD OF GOD. And if GOD thinks those who engage in homosexual acts are sinners (and He apparently does, according to His WORD, in the Bible), they what right does such an earthly leader have to "amend" GOD's word?

Comment by RJ

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:48:56 EDT

Queenie: I HATE it when people refer to themselves in the third person... FWIW...

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:09:42 EDT

>>I don't agree that not showing up to vote is support of the legislation. It was, after all, a special session to pass the law. Jeff Miller (my district's congressman) flew back up to Washington just to vote on it. I think not showing up is as good as saying you don't support it. << Not showing up is saying you don't care, that the issue is meaningless to you. And that's fine, if that's the message you want to send - but it also means that you're saying that it's fine with you to let the other party set the agenda and get their desired outcome from it. >>I mean, if there is an issue on the ballot, say an amendment to the state constitution and I don't vote yes or no on it, I haven't supported it by not voting, right?<< Your complacency supports those who expect people to be apathetic and let them do whatever they want to your state constitution. They're betting on the lazy and the ignorant not voting so that they can control the process. Dave

Comment by Silas Kain

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:39:06 EDT

Here's the thing: I don't think they really have to. If people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist keep grabbing the headlines away from the more moderate Republicans, the Repubs just keep looking like nutjobs, while Democrats will start looking good just as they are. Poppycock. The Democrats are cowards. They've lost their identity and have no message which resonates with America's people. Potential shining stars like Barak Obama are doomed because the party doesn't have the balls to invest in an idealogy. They can't just sit back and hope that Frist and DeLay will make the GOP look looney. That's just not going to happen. As long as people in the grass roots remain complacent and allow the GOP side of the aisle to control the government things won't change. What's needed here are people who have vision, sensible ideas and a clear understanding of what's at stake. We need a "Great Communicator" like Ronald Reagan or the Pope. Without a master of the media, we'll just ramble along like lemmings to the edge of the abyss.

Comment by Scott

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:30:53 EDT

"If only it were true. The sad fact is they're looking at the Republican party jealously and trying to figure out how they can immitate it." Well, I agree that they're jealous of the Republicans share of Christians and they are probably doing some re-tooling to figure out how to grab a larger share, but as far as a specific group of christians within the democrats that are getting disgruntled...I haven't seen that happening at all. Have you any specifics? "the Democrats are making no efforts to change their positions to attract those people." Here's the thing: I don't think they really have to. If people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist keep grabbing the headlines away from the more moderate Republicans, the Repubs just keep looking like nutjobs, while Democrats will start looking good just as they are. "That was just sheer spinelessness. If they didn't like the idea they should have damned well voted. By not voting they get tainted with having supported it by default." I don't agree that not showing up to vote is support of the legislation. It was, after all, a special session to pass the law. Jeff Miller (my district's congressman) flew back up to Washington just to vote on it. I think not showing up is as good as saying you don't support it. I mean, if there is an issue on the ballot, say an amendment to the state constitution and I don't vote yes or no on it, I haven't supported it by not voting, right?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 14:35:33 EDT

>>I think you're jumping the gun a bit there Dave. More or less, Democrats are simply sitting back and watching the Republican party tear itself up. << If only it were true. The sad fact is they're looking at the Republican party jealously and trying to figure out how they can immitate it. They have the exact same problem, you see, they have a religiously motivated minority. In the Republican party the religious minority is out of control. In the Democratic party it's getting alienated and disgruntled. Republicans are trying to figure out how to get rid of or subdue their religious nuts. The Democrats are trying to figure out how to hold onto theirs. They're deathly afraid that the religious posturing of the right will suck their religionists over to the other side. >>To the average American, it looks like the Republican party is now nothing more than an extension of the Conservative Christian far-right, which will force some Independents and moderates into the Democrats corner. << Yes, but the Democrats are making no efforts to change their positions to attract those people. Those aren't people who are going to go to a Howard Dean party. >>That's why so many Democrats (and some Republicans) didn't vote on Schiavo's bill...they (along with a majority of the country) thought it was overstepping the government's boundaries.<< That was just sheer spinelessness. If they didn't like the idea they should have damned well voted. By not voting they get tainted with having supported it by default. Dave

Comment by Victor Plenty

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:30:35 EDT

You might want to cite some better evidence for the claims about the Pope being somehow responsible for the murder of Archbishop Romero. What exactly could John Paul II have "easily" done to prevent that assassination or any other? At that time, right-wing death squads and left-wing revolutionaries were killing people all over Latin America, and nobody seemed to be able to do anything to stop them. Blaming the Pope for any of those deaths seems to require attributing supernatural powers to the man. Generally I disagree with both extremes of opinion on the recently departed pontiff. Those who lionize him forget his harmful mistakes. Those who demonize him neglect his contributions to the peaceful ending of the Cold War, among many other achievements which benefited not only the Catholics, but all humankind.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:20:49 EDT

Ms. Queenie, thank you. I can see a little good that the pope did, and I am not pleased about his demise, but IMO he continued the church's downward spiral and likely, though his sprawling influence, will keep the centuries-old denomination in the dark for at least another half-century. Pity.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:42:29 EDT

great post Queenie, thanks! I am little more generous, but I'm not Catholic so the Pop's dictates don't effect me directly. The general consensus seems to be: energized the Church, took frim stands, but took stands that many feel are backward

Comment by andy marsh

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:06:50 EDT

Can someone explain to me what "life saving sex" is? Sounds like a happy replacement for mouth to mouth!

Comment by Scott

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:00:27 EDT

I think you're jumping the gun a bit there Dave. More or less, Democrats are simply sitting back and watching the Republican party tear itself up. To the average American, it looks like the Republican party is now nothing more than an extension of the Conservative Christian far-right, which will force some Independents and moderates into the Democrats corner. That's why so many Democrats (and some Republicans) didn't vote on Schiavo's bill...they (along with a majority of the country) thought it was overstepping the government's boundaries.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:42:58 EDT

47 Democrats voted yes, 53 voted no and more than those two numbers combined didn't bother to show up. By not showing up they essentially let DeLay have whatever he wanted. That said, it's not just the Schiavo vote that shows where they are going. There is now a conscious effort in the Democratic party to try to hold on to the base they have been alienating for years by reasserting their commitment to religious values. They don't want to lose all the blacks and catholics, and see that as a real danger, so they're starting to talk all holy to keep them on board. They're ressurecting the old idea of the 'social gospel', the idea that huge public assistance programs and government handouts are really motivated by Christian charity. It's a pile of bunkum, but they're trying to sell it. Dave

Comment by Scott

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:06:52 EDT

Democrats supported Tom DeLay? Where does this idea come from? More Democrats voted nay than yea and an even larger number simply did not vote at all. I don't think you could interpret that as the Democrats suddenly being the party of Jesus.