Re: According to Muslims Tolerance only goes one way

by **Stephanie** Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:40 pm

Aaron wrote:Whether you agree or not and even though the reasoning for Islamist actions was different, Paul blamed Americans and their actions for the attacks on 9/11 just as Falwall and Robertson did. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with eithers take on the situation. Ziggy is the one making accusations and I just curious as to how far those accusations go.

Since my curiousity is peaked, I'm wondering, do you agree with Ziggy that Falwell and Robertson and the large segment of Christians they lead and speak for were doing their own version of dancing in the street at 9-11?

That is absolutely absurd! Ron Paul most certainly did NOT blame Americans and their actions for the 9/11 attacks. He never blamed ordinary citizens, as Falwell, Robertson and others did. He blamed US foreign policy and our meddling in the Middle East. Overthrowing governments and installing dictators and otherwise interferring with the affairs of other nations. Sending billions in US taxpayer dollars and weapons to the region and picking sides, that is what our government did and that is what he faults. He never blamed the lifestyles or religion or sexual orientation, or private acts of private citizens just trying to live their lives.

Robertson and Falwell and their ilk feed off the fears of those who listen to them. They want people dependent upon them. Ron Paul wants people to be independent. They preach a message of exclusion and hate. Ron Paul's message is all about peace and liberty.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:37 am

Two things. First, the government you speak of is made up of people, oridinary citizens if you will who are following the directions and policies of their leaders, often without question much like a church or any other large organization and is not an entity acting on its own.

Second, you failed to answer my question. Do you agree with Ziggy that Falwell and Robertson and the large segment of Christians they lead and speak for were doing their own version of dancing in the street at 9-11?

by **Stephanie** Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:50 am

Falwell and Robertson were certainly doing their own version of dancing in the street. I agree with that. As for the people who follow them, not so much.

by **SheikBen** Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:31 am

They were not dancing in the street. They believe that God judges nations who do wrong, and I agree with them. I do not revel in the deaths of the wicked, let alone the innocent. Has America largely rejected God? Yes, it has.

Did God cause those men to kill those innocent people? I do not believe so. Could God have stopped it? You bet.

Robertson and Falwell truly believed that God chose not to protect the United States at that moment. I do not revel in that reality, but I agree with them. I wish no ill upon anyone, and I frankly doubt that Robertson or Falwell did, either.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:47 pm

SheikBen wrote:They were not dancing in the street. They believe that God judges nations who do wrong, and I agree with them. I do not revel in the deaths of the wicked, let alone the innocent. Has America largely rejected God? Yes, it has.

Robertson and Falwell were speaking with obvious jubilee as they realized that they had a grand opportunity to blame their legal, religious and social nemeses right here in the U.S.A. for the destructive events of 9-11. Cato said that Robertson and Falwell lead and speak for a large segment of Christians. So I assert that those for whom Robertson and Falwell speak share in that jubilee- their version of dancing in the streets over 9-11. But how many of those for whom Robertson and Fallwell spoke disowned or disavowed those words?

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:09 pm

SheikBen wrote:Did God cause those men to kill those innocent people? I do not believe so. Could God have stopped it? You bet.

You seem to be trying to draw a distinction between "cause" and "could have stopped"- but without a meaningful difference. As those thousands lay dying in the rubble of 9-11, do you think they cared whether God caused it, or just allowed it? As a practical matter- or even as a mere theological matter- what difference does it make?

Robertson and Falwell truly believed that God chose not to protect the United States at that moment. I do not revel in that reality, but I agree with them. I wish no ill upon anyone, and I frankly doubt that Robertson or Falwell did, either.

I disagree. Robertson and Falwell have long predicted terrible retributions from God for those who go against their versions of God's words. And once they predict calamity, then their credibility, in their psyches, demands that calamity come to pass. And when it does, they feel vindicated- and point their fingers at their domestic social enemies accordingly.

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:26 pm

Aaron wrote:I'm curious Ziggy, was Ron Paul and his followers dancing in the streets when they said American intervention in the Middle East were the cause for 9-11?

No. Ron Paul was not blaming 9-11 on the everyday lives of the American public who are mostly just trying to mind their own business of living and letting live in some ways that are different from what smug social pontificators like Falwell and Robertson would have them doing. But Stephanie said it far better than I can.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:07 pm

So the everyday Americans, the ones who ignore politics and don't go to polls to elect our leaders are not dancing in the streets under Paul's version even though they could have made a difference in who our leaders were but because a preacher expresses his view, those same Americans, many of whom pay no more attention to Roberson and Falwell but share the same faith are dancing in the streets because of the comments of self appointed preachers.

Interesting.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:58 pm

Aaron wrote:So the everyday Americans, the ones who ignore politics and don't go to polls to elect our leaders are not dancing in the streets under Paul's version even though they could have made a difference in who our leaders were but because a preacher expresses his view, those same Americans, many of whom pay no more attention to Roberson and Falwell but share the same faith are dancing in the streets because of the comments of self appointed preachers.

Interesting.

It was Cato, not Ziggy, who said that Fallwell and Robertson lead and speak for a great many Christians. Those who pay no attention to Robertson and Fallwell, of course, are not lead by and spoken for by Fallwell and Robertson. Cato says that Muslims ought to disavow the acts of other Muslims who perpretated what we call 9-11. But he does not similarly suggest that Christians ought to disavow the accusing words of self proclaimed "Christian" preachers like Fallwell and Robertson re: 9-11.

Interesting.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:53 pm

Why is it that Ziggy that when you credit something to Cato and then I compare it to what he actually said, the two are vastly different? And why is it that when you are trying to make a point, something Cato states is suddenly written in stone but if you are attempting to counter him or discredit him, he is never right?

By your reasoning Ziggy Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites when he says America is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 because we have been meddling in the Middle East for decades, right!!!

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:00 pm

Also by your reasoning Ziggy, Barrack Obama agrees with everything Jeremiah Wright as he sat in that church for 20 years, right!!!

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:01 pm

In Cato's own words:

Cato wrote:Pat Robertson Condemned it, I heard him do so in an interview on TV. Jerry Falwell condemned the acts violence I also heard him do it. While I don't necessarily agree with the theology of these men, they do lead an speak for large segments of christains. As Arron stated, you certainly didn't see large crowds of christians daning in the streets celebrating the bombing of abortion clinics, like the muslims did at 9/11.

Cato says that Robertson and Fallwell speak for a "large segments of christains." So if Cato is correct, then Fallwell's and Roberston's words that America deserved 9-11 because of the ACLU, PFAW, the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians are the words of large segments of Christians.

And so far Cato's only reply has been "whatever".

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:04 pm

Aaron wrote:Also by your reasoning Ziggy, Barrack Obama agrees with everything Jeremiah Wright as he sat in that church for 20 years, right!!!

No. Because as far as I know Cato nor anyone else is saying that Jeremiah Wright speaks for Barrack Obama. But Cato does say that Fallwell and Robertson lead and speak for large segments of Christians. So it is Cato's logic, not Ziggy's.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:05 pm

So by your reasoning, Barrack Obama believed Americans deserved the attacks as well, right!!! And you still supported Obama for President so by your reasoning you believe everything Wright says as well, thus Ziggy believes that America deserved to be attacked and that God Damned America.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:07 pm

I did not support Obama for President.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:10 pm

By your reasoning Ziggy Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites when he says America is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 because we have been meddling in the Middle East for decades, right!!!

No, I did not say that Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites. But Cato did say that Fallwell and Robertson speak for many segments of Christians.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:11 pm

ziggy wrote:
By your reasoning Ziggy Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites when he says America is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 because we have been meddling in the Middle East for decades, right!!!

No, I did not say that Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites. But Cato did say that Fallwell and Robertson speak for many segments of Christians.

So why then are suddenly giving credence to something Cato says when you never have before? Seems like more Ziggy CYA double speak if you ask me.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:13 pm

Aaron wrote:So by your reasoning, Barrack Obama believed Americans deserved the attacks as well, right!!! And you still supported Obama for President so by your reasoning you believe everything Wright says as well, thus Ziggy believes that America deserved to be attacked and that God Damned America.

Again, no. No. Because no one is saying that Jeremiah Wright speaks for Barrack Obama. But Cato does say that Fallwell and Robertson lead and speak for large segments of Christians. So it is Cato's logic, not Ziggy's.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:18 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
By your reasoning Ziggy Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites when he says America is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 because we have been meddling in the Middle East for decades, right!!!

No, I did not say that Ron Paul speaks for all Paulites. But Cato did say that Fallwell and Robertson speak for many segments of Christians.

So why then are suddenly giving credence to something Cato says when you never have before? Seems like more Ziggy CYA double speak if you ask me.

My debate on this is with Cato. If Cato wants to withdraw his own words, he can. But until he does, I will use his own words to refute his argument. Cato is the one who brought Fallwell and Robertson into this by saying that they lead and speak for many segments of Christians. But when I show him Fallwell's and Robertson's own words re: 9-11, he doesn't want to talk about it any more.

So you can run all the intereference for Cato that you want to. That does not change what Cato said about Fallwell and Robertson leading and speaking for many segments of Christians.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:29 pm

I'm not running interference for Cato. I'm simply curious why you give something he says crediblitiy when it you never have before.

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:44 pm

I am not giving it credibility. I am just pointing out that if Fallwell and Robertson speak for many segments of Christians- about bombing abortion clinics, in the case Cato cited- then they speak for many segments of Christians on other matters, like about why America allegedly "deserved" 9-11. And just as Cato alleges that but few Muslims denounced the acts of the 9-11 terrorists, I point out that few Christians denounce the words of Fallwell and Robertson re: why America "deserved" 9-11. Cato can't have it both ways. Fallwell and Robertson either lead and speak for many segments fo Christians, or they don't. Cato says that they do. So which is it? Or do Fallwell and Robertson speak for many segments of Christians only on those matters Cato authorizes them to?

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:52 pm

So then you believe Robertson and Falwell and their followers were dancing in the street because Cato said they speak for Christians but Reverend Wright's followers, which included the President weren't even though he said the same thing Falwell and Robertson did.

Sorry Ziggy but that just doesn't sound logical. Either it's uniform across the board and Reverend Wright's followers were dancing as well or you are giving credibility to what Cato says.

Which is it?

by ziggy Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:15 pm

Cato did not say that Rev. Wright leads and speaks for anyone. But he did say that Fallwell and Robertson lead and speak for "many segments of Christians". If you disagree with that, take it up with Cato.

Cato started this topic with the title, "According to Muslims Tolerance only goes one way". But Cato's own "tolerance" only goes one way, as well. He demands that Muslims denounce the terrorists who perpetrated 9-11 in the name of Islam, but makes no such demands of Christians for their leaders and spokespersons who say that America deserved 9-11.

by Aaron Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:39 pm

If you go back, I didn't ask you what Cato said or thought, I ask you what you thought. I'm curious, do you even have an independent thought on this or is your goal to try and harass Cato with your word games?

by ziggy Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:07 am

Cato is constantly laying out grandiose social and religious proclamations- often as wide as a Georgia pine is tall. All I am doing is steering the proverbial Mack truck ................................... .

If Cato can't play word games, he shouldn't start them. When he claims that two self-annointed TV preachers who make zillion$ of dollars on their grandstanded political / theological pontifications "lead and speak for many segments of Christians", then he should expect some reactions to those words.

I do not mind that you continue to run intereference for Cato. You are a more worthy defender of Cato's words than he is. Because just saying, "whatever" does not go very far, nor inspire much credibility.

by Sponsored content