WELL SAID!
Two Items....Only Two...Nothing More J
'Nuff Said
J
Posted on 12/11/2001 4:29:09 PM PST by MoJo2001
One email has really got me thinking. The best point of those who disagree with my earlier post on Walker/Spann is that Walker wasn't/isn't really a lefty. He's actually a right-wing religious zealot. Here's the case: "Maybe I missed something, but I am not sure how a religious fundamentalist and zealot like John Walker is an embodiment of the American Hating Left. He is a right wing religious nut just like the guy arrested here in Cincinnati last week for sending fake anthrax to abortion clinics. While you may be correct that his permissive parents and his multicultural context may have produced him (sounds like something some right wing nut case would say about homosexuality, right Andrew?), what it produced was a right wing Islamic religious nut who hates the West and America for its decadence (which he enjoyed and benefited from) and sin, just like his brothers on the right wing Christian extreme (like maybe Tim McVeigh, who was a Catholic to boot?). Let's at least be honest that Walker represents some of the worst of American permissiveness and multiculturalism, while being the embodiment of right wing religious fanaticism. I think we all get caught on this one." This strikes me as pretty smart. What it misses, though, is that Walker actually rebelled against Catholicism for being too strict when he was younger. I think he was attracted to Islam as much by its exoticism as by its strictures. I think we have a classic case of being brought up with really permissive parents in a really permissive culture. You want to rebel, but your authority figures approve of 'rebellion' so you have to find some sort of anti-liberal rebellion. Islam fits the bill perfectly. Hip-hop was a mite too predictable and you can imagine his parents almost approving. The extremism with which he pursued his rebellion is probably inexplicable out of psychoanalysis. But the link between his chosen lifestyle and the culture in which he was born is still valid, I think. - 12/11/2001 07:25:31 PM
I have a liberal friend myself who proposed this exact same thing. I asked her "If a woman gets raped, did she somehow deserve it?" For a brief moment I think I got through to her. Either that or she was trying to recall the days talking points :)
The left calls every devil a conservative, and every angel a liberal.
How silly.
Especially when, over here in Reality, it's just the opposite.
They want to restore it's glory, and resent the feminist asault on all that's of value.
There's a difference.
"The more we try to imitate and please the kaffir, the more they laugh at us. 'Look at them stupid Mozlems, trying to be like us! Gee wheeyiz, I shore am glad Ize an Amuricayin Chrishchen! Hee haw,'" he wrote.
There you have it. One of the core attitudes of American leftism, as absorbed by a screwed-up, somewhat dumb child of divorce from Marin County in the rotten heart of the America-hating Blue Zone. Maybe I should mail it in to Andrew Sullivan.
It is so deliciously ironic that you of all people would ask such a question. One method of becoming 'not a catholic,' which is to say 'to be excommunicated,' is to aid or abet the procurement of an abortion. Ring a bell?
Even people who are on death row for killing someone are Catholics. Don't let your views on abortion cloud your mind.
Under ordinary circumstances the left is very sympathetic towards and closely aligned with Islamic fundamentalist revolutionaries. Day after day we hear that Israel is an apartheid state, that we've starved to death half a million Iraqi children, etc. We're supposed to be on the side of "the Palestinians" and give the PLO the time of day. We're supposed to "understand", "why they hate us", and realize that with our Western imperialist ways we are not respecting their beliefs.
Then some dumb kid actually acts on all that rhetoric, goes over there, and takes up arms with the bad guys, and suddenly it's "Oh no! Disengage!" Suddenly he's not a leftist, he's a right-wing nut. Why? "Because he's religious!" Ah yes, the old standby. If it hadn't been "religion", it would have been some other reason (maybe: "he's on the right because he had a wealthy upbringing..."). But make no mistake, anyone who does anything bad or unpopular can be disconnected from the Left and grafted onto the Right at a moment's notice.
Remember the commies from the Cold War, like Milosevic? Then remember in the '90s when suddenly Milosevic was an evil ethnic-cleanser, a "hard-line conservative"? How do you think that happened, hmmm?
Heck, I've seen people argue with a straight face that Stalin was "really" a right-winger. In the face of that, one is forced to concede that all bad people are (de facto) right wingers.
At least if leftist rhetoric is to be believed.
Ok look, try to focus on what is important in this discussion. When we try to characterize someone's motives (whether they are on the left or right, whether they are an Islamic fundamentalist or an atheist humanist communist...) we are not interested in what religion their parents were, per se. This is not a genetic investigation. It is an ideological one.
For example: John Lindh was an Islamic extremist, in thought and deed. Therefore, that is what is important in evaluating his motives and actions, and learning from them whatever lessons we might learn. It is not important, from this point of view, that his father was a nominal Irish Catholic or that his mother flirted with Buddhism (except to the extent that this circumstance may have contributed to his infatuation with Islam).
Now then, to McVeigh. Once again, when analyzing who McVeigh "was" (i.e. religion, ideology...) it is not all that informative to just go look up who his mother was. We are interested in what McVeigh himself actually believed. So you can see that your idea that once someone is born a Catholic, they're always a Catholic - while for all I know may be technically true - doesn't help us.
We are trying to examine what McVeigh believed during his life, not which religious identity he was tagged with at birth. Why? Because to some extent, it may be possible to blame his ideology/beliefs for what he did. (By contrast, it is not possible to blame "Catholicism" for what he did merely because he was born into a Catholic family.)
Now then, what were McVeigh's actual beliefs? Well, he was a neo-Nazi involved with a white supremacist commune in Oklahoma which called itself "Elohim City" and had many pseudo-German-pagan beliefs. It appears to have been his involvement with "Elohim City" which got him mixed up in the bombing.
Another way of saying this is that Tim McVeigh, the guy who bombed Oklahoma City, was not a Catholic. Just like everyone has been explaining to you.
Where did you get your degree?
Where'd you get yours?
I assume you have fact gathered to the point where you can state the "real" truth behind Mr. Walker's motives?
Hey Sparky, it's called 'inference from available evidence'. Try it some time.
Someone posted data here recently which showed that more human lives have been taken by atheists than all other religions combined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.