Sister Joan Chittister famously said, "We are each called to go through life reclaiming the planet an inch at a time until the Garden of Eden grows green again." Reflecting on that journey -- a blog at a time -- is the focus of this site.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
And the "Quote of the Day" goes to ....
So here's the tweet I sent out earlier this week ... which was also on my Facebook page ...
... and got me the "RNS (Religion News Service) Quote of the Day!" (Who knew there WAS one???)
There's some truth to what you say, and it bears thinking about. In fact both men do represent certain factions in the umbrella that covers their religion. Like it or not, there are extremists in any religion that take some of the ideas and run them out to an extreme while failing to integrate them into the rest of the ideas they have. It is the duty of those of us who are adherents of the respective religions containing those extremists to visibly oppose the extremists and their actions.
But there's also a rather large flaw in that comparison. To my knowledge Fred Phelps has not set off any bombs. He has not kidnapped anyone, he has not assassinated anyone, he has not left sidewalks strewn with dead people and body parts, he has not slaughtered children. He has not published instructions on how to build weapons. He has no exhorted young men and women to strap explosives to their bodies, seek out innocents and destroy them and themselves. He has not invoked Christ and done any such acts.
Fred Phelps is an odious person. But he does not compare to these two, or those who act like them.
when "we" make excuses for "our" crackpot extremists by explaining why their actions "aren't at bad" as those of the other guys' extremists we fail to implement what you outline in your initial argument.
and ... as the mother of an Irag/Afghanistan vet ... you're never going to change my mind that the psychic violence done by Phelps and his ilk picketing the funerals of dead soldiers does not rise to the same level of condemnation as those who do physical violence. You can argue with me if you want to but you'll be wasting your time and mine.
So, I guess you also find yourself screaming at Bill Maher whenever he makes these comparisons on his show (or maybe you don't watch -- he does detest religion).
I wonder what the opinion of the relatives of those dead soldiers and the relatives of the terrorism victims would be?
Fine, I won't change your mind. But I do object to having my comments about him vs. a terrorist bomber mischaracterized as making excuses for him. To hold an opinion that A's actions are not as bad as B's actions does not equal making excuses for A's actions.
"... you're never going to change my mind that the psychic violence done by Phelps and his ilk picketing the funerals of dead soldiers does not rise to the same level of condemnation as those who do physical violence."
Would you then hold that both should have the same penalty at law?
6 comments:
There's some truth to what you say, and it bears thinking about. In fact both men do represent certain factions in the umbrella that covers their religion. Like it or not, there are extremists in any religion that take some of the ideas and run them out to an extreme while failing to integrate them into the rest of the ideas they have. It is the duty of those of us who are adherents of the respective religions containing those extremists to visibly oppose the extremists and their actions.
But there's also a rather large flaw in that comparison. To my knowledge Fred Phelps has not set off any bombs. He has not kidnapped anyone, he has not assassinated anyone, he has not left sidewalks strewn with dead people and body parts, he has not slaughtered children. He has not published instructions on how to build weapons. He has no exhorted young men and women to strap explosives to their bodies, seek out innocents and destroy them and themselves. He has not invoked Christ and done any such acts.
Fred Phelps is an odious person. But he does not compare to these two, or those who act like them.
thumbs up first paragraph; thumbs down second.
when "we" make excuses for "our" crackpot extremists by explaining why their actions "aren't at bad" as those of the other guys' extremists we fail to implement what you outline in your initial argument.
and ... as the mother of an Irag/Afghanistan vet ... you're never going to change my mind that the psychic violence done by Phelps and his ilk picketing the funerals of dead soldiers does not rise to the same level of condemnation as those who do physical violence. You can argue with me if you want to but you'll be wasting your time and mine.
Seriously.
So, I guess you also find yourself screaming at Bill Maher whenever he makes these comparisons on his show (or maybe you don't watch -- he does detest religion).
I never miss Bill Maher. He's on my "TIVO" list. And I think he's wrong, too. (But I don't scream ... I rant. It's a different charism.)
I wonder what the opinion of the relatives of those dead soldiers and the relatives of the terrorism victims would be?
Fine, I won't change your mind. But I do object to having my comments about him vs. a terrorist bomber mischaracterized as making excuses for him. To hold an opinion that A's actions are not as bad as B's actions does not equal making excuses for A's actions.
"... you're never going to change my mind that the psychic violence done by Phelps and his ilk picketing the funerals of dead soldiers does not rise to the same level of condemnation as those who do physical violence."
Would you then hold that both should have the same penalty at law?
this wasn't a blog about law
it was a blog about recognizing that, as my friend Salam Al-Marayati said last week "terrorism had no religion"
thanks for taking time to comment
Post a Comment