The big news of the day is the death of the number 2 al-qaeda man. How many times can there be a celebration over the death of one man? But right now the right-wing is high-fiving each other until their hands are raw. With the number of times that they thought they got him I would have waited untiil there was 100% evidence to support this. Anyways, It does appear that there is no such thing as forgiveness, regret, love, or understanding from the right.
If a Christian right-winger is excited about this development and, to celebrate, declares any sort of jubilation in the idea that al-Zarqawi is burning in Hell then they are guilty of a multitude of sins. Wishing evil on someone, even if that person is dead, is hateful, spiteful, unloving, unforgiving, and un-Christ-like. Cruising through the Blogging Tories posts I found none of the posts proclaiming anything remotely Christian. This is likely the case because none of the Blogging Tories are Christians. Or maybe they are just un-Biblical Christians. I don’t know. That is theirs to figure out.
The Right wing is full of spiteful people. Mostly they ignore the fact that any group of people is made up of persons and, so it would appear, a human is only really a person if that human is known personally.
Or there are ideas like this:
Personally, I am from a long line of English Protestants who are proud to have used legitimately extreme measures in defeating the likes of Adolf Hitler. Perhaps Winston Churchill was an Anglican ‘extremist’. Who knew.
Tranquility Base is here in Canada where the ‘peace-pimps’ dishonourably expect others to do their fighting while they reap the profits of peace.
First of all, it is not peace when there is fighting. I think the definition of “fighting” is the antithesis of “peace” so these two cannot coincide. As well, how can you reap the profits of peace if there is always a new enemy to fight? Cold-war, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and other peaceful love-ins in foreign lands. I am not a war-historian, but didn’t Russia actually do most of the work in WWII? I don’t think it was the US or the UK. The US was reluctant at first, scared shitless second, and third they were just the ones who pushed the last guy off of the hill. King of the hill is a game that never accurately demonstrates who is better.
As for the legimate use of extreme measures we could consider the Crusades, the many Holy wars, the witch hunts, and so on. These, while be the easiest to call on, were considered legitimate at the time. I would wait before calling the actions of the Western world something legitimate and then tieing that legitimacy into religion. It seems to look different after 500 years.
Then there is the idea that we do not have to follow the Bible until everyone else does.
I really don’t know how to entitle this one. I’ll agree with the author of the article below on one point, and only one… the Lord Jesus Christ would have all of us “Love one another”. If we could get the world to do that, we’d be just fine.
The article that is being referred to is one about religion and Bush. The point is that killing someone that is causing grief for you is OK. What would happen if a foreign group of Christian radicals rose up and starting doing exactly what the Muslim extremists are doing? Hmmmm, maybe I should start a club….
How can you not get it?The father of a man murdered by al-Quada speaks out against Bush and is then thought to be deserving of scorn and pity. No feelings of sadness, empathy, understanding? No feelings of regret that possibly Western actions or attitudes are somewhat to blame? That’s right, just a whole lot of disassociation. Even more cognitive dissonance – “the Bible says peace and love or something and so we will use war and hatred to bring that about” (my paraphrase of the religous Right.
As for understanding, some Conservatives feel it is ok to disregard an entire religion simply because the #2 Terrorist is dead.
Beck’s point is that putting a ham-hat on terrorists after they are dead would make them think twice about “martyring” themselves. They may believe that their pork laced corpse would prevent them from reaching paradise if buried in such a way.
Honestly, I like the idea.
The only reason someone could like the idea is that they have no respect for any other religion. Unless . . . they actually believe in Islam and feel that they need to prevent access to Paradise. In which case this would be odd because, as an infidel, they would end up in the same place as the believer they wanted to bar. My question: Are you with us or against us?
Justice is another word that Christians assign to God but right-wingers like to impose. I cannot see how dropping a bomb on a guy is considered justice.
Justice is a concept involving the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law. It is often seen as the continued effort to do what is “right.” In most of all cases what one regards as “right” is determined by consulting the majority, employing logic, or referring to divine authority, in the case of religion. If a person lives under a certain set law in a certain country, justice is considered making the person follow the law and be punished if not.
In this case the right-wingers consider death as justice served. But what of the others who died during the implementation of this justice. Were not others killed thinking it was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi? Were their deaths considered to be in the name of justice? If so, then justice would mean the death of anyone who opposing the current mission. Or getting caught in the cross-fire.
It seems to me that right-wingers claim to hold the only set of keys to unlock peace, love, justice, understanding and the keys to heaven. Seems to me it is rather stupid to hold those keys and never use them. Sort of like holding the keys to a vintage Vespa and never going for a ride, not even a short drive to show it off.
Heaven denied, not just for Al-Zarqawi, but for everyone.
