In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Today's Editorial by Leonard Pitts
p3skyking
Member Posts: 23,916 ✭✭✭
This morning I read Leonard Pitts on the op-ed page and was struck by his usual finely tuned grasp of reality. While I don't always agree with him, this bears posting for the folks that don't have access to a morning paper. If you already have made up your mind on this topic, this probably won't change it. If you enjoy irony, you will find all you can carry.
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
Between 1933 and 1945, as a series of restrictive laws, brutal pogroms and mass deportations culminated in the slaughter of six million Jews, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Between 1955 and 1968, as the forces of oppression used terrorist bombings, police violence and kangaroo courts to deny African Americans their freedom, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Beginning in 1980, as a mysterious and deadly new disease called AIDS began to rage through the homosexual community like an unchecked fire, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
So who can be surprised by the new Pew report?
Specifically, it's from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, and it surveys Americans' attitudes on the torture of suspected terrorists. Pew found that 49 percent of the nation believes torture is at least sometimes justifiable. Slice that number by religious affiliation, though, and things get interesting. It turns out the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, but that the more you attend church, the more likely you are to condone it. Among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.
You'd think people who claim connection to a higher morality would be the ones most likely to take the lonely, principled stand. But you need only look at history to see how seldom that has been the case, how frequently my people -- Christians -- acquiesce to expediency and fail to look beyond the immediate. Never mind that looking beyond the immediate pretty much constitutes a Christian's entire job description.
In the Bible it says, ''Perfect love casts out fear.'' What we see so often in people of faith, though, is an imperfect love that embraces fear, that lets us live contentedly in our moral comfort zones, doing spiritual busywork and clucking pieties, things that let you feel good, but never require you to put anything at risk, take a leap, make that lonely stand.
Again, there are exceptions, but they prove the rule, which is that in our smug belief that God is on our side, we often fail to ask if we are on His.
So it is often left to a few iconoclasts -- Oskar Schindler, the war profiteer who rescued 1,200 Jews in Poland; James Reeb, the Unitarian Universalist minister murdered for supporting African-American voting rights in Alabama; Princess Diana, the British royal who courted international opprobrium for simply touching a person with AIDS in Britain -- to do the dangerous and moral thing while the great body of Christendom watches in silence.
Now there is this ongoing debate over the morality of torture in which putative people of faith say they can live with a little blood (someone else's) and a little pain (also someone else's) if it helps maintain the illusion of security (theirs), and never mind such niceties as guilt or innocence.
Thus it was left to Jon Stewart, the cheerfully irreligious host of The Daily Show, to speak last week of the need to be willingly bound by rules of decency and civilization or else be indistinguishable from the terrorists. ''I understand the impulse,'' he said. ``I wanted them to clone bin Laden so that we could kill one a year at half-time at the Super Bowl. . . . I understand bloodlust, I understand revenge, I understand all those feelings. I also understand that this country is better than me.''
So there you have it: a statement of principle and higher morality from a late nightcomic. That Christians are not lining up to say the same is glaringly ironic in light of what happened to a Middle Eastern man who was arrested by the government, imprisoned and tortured. Eventually he was even executed, though he was innocent of any crime.
His name was Jesus.
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
Between 1933 and 1945, as a series of restrictive laws, brutal pogroms and mass deportations culminated in the slaughter of six million Jews, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Between 1955 and 1968, as the forces of oppression used terrorist bombings, police violence and kangaroo courts to deny African Americans their freedom, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Beginning in 1980, as a mysterious and deadly new disease called AIDS began to rage through the homosexual community like an unchecked fire, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
So who can be surprised by the new Pew report?
Specifically, it's from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, and it surveys Americans' attitudes on the torture of suspected terrorists. Pew found that 49 percent of the nation believes torture is at least sometimes justifiable. Slice that number by religious affiliation, though, and things get interesting. It turns out the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, but that the more you attend church, the more likely you are to condone it. Among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.
You'd think people who claim connection to a higher morality would be the ones most likely to take the lonely, principled stand. But you need only look at history to see how seldom that has been the case, how frequently my people -- Christians -- acquiesce to expediency and fail to look beyond the immediate. Never mind that looking beyond the immediate pretty much constitutes a Christian's entire job description.
In the Bible it says, ''Perfect love casts out fear.'' What we see so often in people of faith, though, is an imperfect love that embraces fear, that lets us live contentedly in our moral comfort zones, doing spiritual busywork and clucking pieties, things that let you feel good, but never require you to put anything at risk, take a leap, make that lonely stand.
Again, there are exceptions, but they prove the rule, which is that in our smug belief that God is on our side, we often fail to ask if we are on His.
So it is often left to a few iconoclasts -- Oskar Schindler, the war profiteer who rescued 1,200 Jews in Poland; James Reeb, the Unitarian Universalist minister murdered for supporting African-American voting rights in Alabama; Princess Diana, the British royal who courted international opprobrium for simply touching a person with AIDS in Britain -- to do the dangerous and moral thing while the great body of Christendom watches in silence.
Now there is this ongoing debate over the morality of torture in which putative people of faith say they can live with a little blood (someone else's) and a little pain (also someone else's) if it helps maintain the illusion of security (theirs), and never mind such niceties as guilt or innocence.
Thus it was left to Jon Stewart, the cheerfully irreligious host of The Daily Show, to speak last week of the need to be willingly bound by rules of decency and civilization or else be indistinguishable from the terrorists. ''I understand the impulse,'' he said. ``I wanted them to clone bin Laden so that we could kill one a year at half-time at the Super Bowl. . . . I understand bloodlust, I understand revenge, I understand all those feelings. I also understand that this country is better than me.''
So there you have it: a statement of principle and higher morality from a late nightcomic. That Christians are not lining up to say the same is glaringly ironic in light of what happened to a Middle Eastern man who was arrested by the government, imprisoned and tortured. Eventually he was even executed, though he was innocent of any crime.
His name was Jesus.
Comments
I have not done any Pew research, however.
Brad Steele
I never agree with Mr. Pitts and this is no exception. The left wing extremists want friendly, bloodless, * By Ya type war that will not at the least, leave a nasty taste in their mouths and certainly no blood on their hands. They are what is wrong with America. Waterboarding works without the usual mutiation and gore associated with normal wartime interogation.
The left would rather sacrifice it's own, throw our warfighters to the dogs, rather than do the needed work to find, and kill our enemy. They sacrifice a million babies a year without so much as a fleeting thought... what's a few thousand soldiers?
Mr. Pitts views are usually racist in nature, at least he's now branched out into Christian hating now too. Typical Democrat.
Moderator
20304 Posts
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 8:56:17 PM
Personally, I am for whatever is necessary to get the job done and save American lives. If that means torture, than so be it. These scumbags want to see all non-muslims dead. I would have no problem with wiping out their entire race and religion. We are all wired differently, but these are my thoughts on this subject. Don't get me wrong...I am not predjudice in any way...but this is war...and as far as I'm concerned, all is fair in war. Period. I'd rather win this war, by whatever the cost, than to lose it. Just my .02
Eric
allamericanarmsco@frontiernet.net
All American Arms Company
www.galleryofguns.com
VIP Code: AAAC
Veteran Owned and Operated
Topic ID is 1790968
Not picking on you Eric, yours is just the most glaring irony I found.
Brad Steele
This morning I read Leonard Pitts on the op-ed page and was struck by his usual finely tuned grasp of reality. While I don't always agree with him, this bears posting for the folks that don't have access to a morning paper. If you already have made up your mind on this topic, this probably won't change it. If you enjoy irony, you will find all you can carry.
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
Between 1933 and 1945, as a series of restrictive laws, brutal pogroms and mass deportations culminated in the slaughter of six million Jews, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Between 1955 and 1968, as the forces of oppression used terrorist bombings, police violence and kangaroo courts to deny African Americans their freedom, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Beginning in 1980, as a mysterious and deadly new disease called AIDS began to rage through the homosexual community like an unchecked fire, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
So who can be surprised by the new Pew report?
Specifically, it's from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, and it surveys Americans' attitudes on the torture of suspected terrorists. Pew found that 49 percent of the nation believes torture is at least sometimes justifiable. Slice that number by religious affiliation, though, and things get interesting. It turns out the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, but that the more you attend church, the more likely you are to condone it. Among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.
You'd think people who claim connection to a higher morality would be the ones most likely to take the lonely, principled stand. But you need only look at history to see how seldom that has been the case, how frequently my people -- Christians -- acquiesce to expediency and fail to look beyond the immediate. Never mind that looking beyond the immediate pretty much constitutes a Christian's entire job description.
In the Bible it says, ''Perfect love casts out fear.'' What we see so often in people of faith, though, is an imperfect love that embraces fear, that lets us live contentedly in our moral comfort zones, doing spiritual busywork and clucking pieties, things that let you feel good, but never require you to put anything at risk, take a leap, make that lonely stand.
Again, there are exceptions, but they prove the rule, which is that in our smug belief that God is on our side, we often fail to ask if we are on His.
So it is often left to a few iconoclasts -- Oskar Schindler, the war profiteer who rescued 1,200 Jews in Poland; James Reeb, the Unitarian Universalist minister murdered for supporting African-American voting rights in Alabama; Princess Diana, the British royal who courted international opprobrium for simply touching a person with AIDS in Britain -- to do the dangerous and moral thing while the great body of Christendom watches in silence.
Now there is this ongoing debate over the morality of torture in which putative people of faith say they can live with a little blood (someone else's) and a little pain (also someone else's) if it helps maintain the illusion of security (theirs), and never mind such niceties as guilt or innocence.
Thus it was left to Jon Stewart, the cheerfully irreligious host of The Daily Show, to speak last week of the need to be willingly bound by rules of decency and civilization or else be indistinguishable from the terrorists. ''I understand the impulse,'' he said. ``I wanted them to clone bin Laden so that we could kill one a year at half-time at the Super Bowl. . . . I understand bloodlust, I understand revenge, I understand all those feelings. I also understand that this country is better than me.''
So there you have it: a statement of principle and higher morality from a late nightcomic. That Christians are not lining up to say the same is glaringly ironic in light of what happened to a Middle Eastern man who was arrested by the government, imprisoned and tortured. Eventually he was even executed, though he was innocent of any crime.
His name was Jesus.
This would be laughable if it wasnt so dangerous. Its not even worth disputing point by point.
Disgusting.
I think I would prefer Earl Pitts's editorial on this issue over Leonard's.
[:D][:D][:D] Well, okay, but if you suggest Erlene Axual, I'm outta here! [:D]
load of crap, first of all you have to believe what our guys did is torture, I don't.
Bold talk Scott. Have you ever been waterboarded?
In three minutes you would offer to perform oral sex to make it stop.
Would that make a believer out of you?
I will be happy to waterboard anyone that really wants to know what it's like.
Whether anyone agrees with Pitts is not the point, can anyone prove otherwise to his assertions?
quote:Originally posted by scottm21166
load of crap, first of all you have to believe what our guys did is torture, I don't.
Bold talk Scott. Have you ever been waterboarded?
In three minutes you would offer to perform oral sex to make it stop.
Would that make a believer out of you?
I will be happy to waterboard anyone that really wants to know what it's like.
Whether anyone agrees with Pitts is not the point, can anyone prove otherwise to his assertions?
Who, in their right mind would want to dignify responding to a known racist activist? Would he want to dignify what I have to say about the NOI, the Black Panthers, and the killings and maimings they are responsible for, for years on end, when that is the truth of the matter? The activist black community is the filthiest bunch of scumbags in America, do you think he would fess up to any of their criminal and discriminatory acts? He can go straight to you know where as far as I am concerned.
load of crap, first of all you have to believe what our guys did is torture, I don't. besides that, the prisoners have the choice to make it stop anytime they feel like talking. whatever happens to them is their own choice...I mean really, if A guy says asks you " where do you plan to blow up more innocent women and children" and you respond with the finger you should expect to have some discomfort designed to get you talking.
Couldn't agree more.
For every "Christian" quote in the Bible supporting the Lib point of view, One can find supporting the other.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
The planes that changed our lives on 9 /11 were real .
As a liberal know -it -all, Pitts and other twits have continually bombarded us with what Bush should have known ,should have done ,and countless other remarks .
We will be hit again .
What Pitts needs to understand is the fact that if we are hit and it gets out that our Gov. might have had a way to prevent it ,there is not a hole deep enough for them to hide in .
And liberals will be the ones screaming the loudest !
For every "Christian" quote in the Bible supporting the Lib point of view, One can find supporting the other.
This can't possibly be true, can it? The Bible is infallible--consistent all the way through. Nobody could ever misread it, or disagree about what it means, could they?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I think I would prefer Earl Pitts's editorial on this issue over Leonard's.
[:D][:D][:D] Well, okay, but if you suggest Erlene Axual, I'm outta here! [:D]
Earl Pitts rocks!!! This pious democrat is rather insulting and offensive with his blame everything on Republicans hate speech.
Finely tuned Racist with little grasp of reality is a more accurate description.
Between 1933 and 1945, as a series of restrictive laws, brutal pogroms and mass deportations culminated in the slaughter of six million Jews, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Not as isolated as you may wish to imagine, the Confessing Church in Germany was hardly isolated, but over all, that is correct;
Between 1955 and 1968, as the forces of oppression used terrorist bombings, police violence and kangaroo courts to deny African Americans their freedom, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Nonsense. It began at reconstruction. But guilty as charged.
Beginning in 1980, as a mysterious and deadly new disease called AIDS began to rage through the homosexual community like an unchecked fire, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
No, the historical dates are wrong. And this time, those who experienced the disease for the most part spit in the faces of those who would have helped. Could have done much better, and since not a perfect response, I guess guilty.
The rest, however, uses loaded terminology in a hypocritical attempt to score political points.
Did the Pew researchers define torture in their questions ?
Have you, p3skyking, a definition you would be willing to offer for the purposes of this discussion ?
Aggressive interrogation is not always necessartily torture, I'll bet.
Please tell me what torture is.
When Leonard takes a vacation, you could fill in for him and write his columns, Barzilla.
And as I wrote in the opening post, "If you already have made up your mind on this topic, this probably won't change it", but it sure did showcase the validity of it.
[;)]
The Pew report is total crap. Furthermore, making reference to the Catholic church is meaningless. Tryinh to rquate waterboarding to the holocost is just idiotic. This newspaper writer is a total jackazz and illustrates why the newspaper business is dying. RIP.
I believe the newspaper business is dying because people are not as literate as they used to be.
One need only pick out the formerly self-anointed devout on this thread to find the proof of Pitts' editorial.
And as I wrote in the opening post, "If you already have made up your mind on this topic, this probably won't change it", but it sure did showcase the validity of it.
[;)]
It also showcased your politically correct mindset, to no one's surprise.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Between 1933 and 1945, as a series of restrictive laws, brutal pogroms and mass deportations culminated in the slaughter of six million Jews, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Not as isolated as you may wish to imagine, the Confessing Church in Germany was hardly isolated, but over all, that is correct;
Between 1955 and 1968, as the forces of oppression used terrorist bombings, police violence and kangaroo courts to deny African Americans their freedom, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Nonsense. It began at reconstruction. But guilty as charged.
Beginning in 1980, as a mysterious and deadly new disease called AIDS began to rage through the homosexual community like an unchecked fire, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
No, the historical dates are wrong. And this time, those who experienced the disease for the most part spit in the faces of those who would have helped. Could have done much better, and since not a perfect response, I guess guilty.
The rest, however, uses loaded terminology in a hypocritical attempt to score political points.
Did the Pew researchers define torture in their questions ?
Have you, p3skyking, a definition you would be willing to offer for the purposes of this discussion ?
Aggressive interrogation is not always necessartily torture, I'll bet.
Please tell me what torture is.
When Leonard takes a vacation, you could fill in for him and write his columns, Barzilla.
Kimi, "To whom much is given, much will be required."
Perhaps you can show me the exemplary Christ-like response of the professing church in this country, or Europe, in the above matters.
Show me the power of God displayed in response by the Church to those issues, not by relatively isolated individuals, but by a groundswell of outrage and concern for the lives and souls of those oppressed .
Telling me it is not Laodocia, and that we are not in the midst of massive apostacy ?
"When the Son of Man returns, will He find the faith ?"
The answer is implied in the question.[xx(]
I think.
My point is well made Barzilla.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
One need only pick out the formerly self-anointed devout on this thread to find the proof of Pitts' editorial.
And as I wrote in the opening post, "If you already have made up your mind on this topic, this probably won't change it", but it sure did showcase the validity of it.
[;)]
It also showcased your politically correct mindset, to no one's surprise.
If not willing to cause suffering to a defeated enemy is politically correct, that's a bonus. The French wanted to make the Hun suffer after WWI and they did. 20 years later it bit them on the * hard.
But I'm sure you have no clue what I'm talking about. [xx(]
If not willing to cause suffering to a defeated enemy is politically correct, that's a bonus. The French wanted to make the Hun suffer after WWI and they did. 20 years later it bit them on the * hard.
But I'm sure you have no clue what I'm talking about. [xx(]
25 years later the Hun was a crushed, ruined mess. Who had the last * bite? Good will alway defeat evil... that is unless a weak liberal Democrat is in charge.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Between 1933 and 1945, as a series of restrictive laws, brutal pogroms and mass deportations culminated in the slaughter of six million Jews, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Not as isolated as you may wish to imagine, the Confessing Church in Germany was hardly isolated, but over all, that is correct;
Between 1955 and 1968, as the forces of oppression used terrorist bombings, police violence and kangaroo courts to deny African Americans their freedom, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
Nonsense. It began at reconstruction. But guilty as charged.
Beginning in 1980, as a mysterious and deadly new disease called AIDS began to rage through the homosexual community like an unchecked fire, the Christian church, with isolated exceptions, watched in silence.
No, the historical dates are wrong. And this time, those who experienced the disease for the most part spit in the faces of those who would have helped. Could have done much better, and since not a perfect response, I guess guilty.
The rest, however, uses loaded terminology in a hypocritical attempt to score political points.
Did the Pew researchers define torture in their questions ?
Have you, p3skyking, a definition you would be willing to offer for the purposes of this discussion ?
Aggressive interrogation is not always necessartily torture, I'll bet.
Please tell me what torture is.
When Leonard takes a vacation, you could fill in for him and write his columns, Barzilla.
Kimi, "To whom much is given, much will be required."
Perhaps you can show me the exemplary Christ-like response of the professing church in this country, or Europe, in the above matters.
Show me the power of God displayed in response by the Church to those issues, not by relatively isolated individuals, but by a groundswell of outrage and concern for the lives and souls of those oppressed .
Telling me it is not Laodocia, and that we are not in the midst of massive apostacy ?
"When the Son of Man returns, will He find the faith ?"
The answer is implied in the question.[xx(]
I think.
My point is well made Barzilla.
Your point is what ? Honestly, I am surprised. Obviously you do not agree with me about about something, but what is it precisely ?
Clearly I am missing something.[?]
My point is that you could fill in for Leonard Pitts and write his columns for him while he takes some time off. Isn't that basically what I said? [:D][;)]
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
One need only pick out the formerly self-anointed devout on this thread to find the proof of Pitts' editorial.
And as I wrote in the opening post, "If you already have made up your mind on this topic, this probably won't change it", but it sure did showcase the validity of it.
[;)]
It also showcased your politically correct mindset, to no one's surprise.
If not willing to cause suffering to a defeated enemy is politically correct, that's a bonus. The French wanted to make the Hun suffer after WWI and they did. 20 years later it bit them on the * hard.
But I'm sure you have no clue what I'm talking about. [xx(]
I'll stand by my comment about your politically correct mindset. That's the KISS method, but you would not know anything about not mincing words would you?
Kimi, "Obviously you do not agree with me about about something, but what is it precisely ?
Clearly I am missing something."
I was not agreeing with the conclusions of the author about allegations of torture.
I was agreeing with some of the author's complaints about some of the actions of the church during the last 200 years, finding it a less than compelling or responsible picture of Christ.
I think that if you agree with the author in his analysis of torture, I think you are mistaken.
I think that if you believe that the church has lived up to it's responsibilities during the last 200 years, I think you are mistaken.
I would prefer not to play 20 questions, so I will not press you on this matter.[8D]
Did you read this?:
Who, in their right mind would want to dignify responding to a known racist activist? Would he want to dignify what I have to say about the NOI, the Black Panthers, and the killings and maimings they are responsible for, for years on end, when that is the truth of the matter? The activist black community is the filthiest bunch of scumbags in America, do you think he would fess up to any of their criminal and discriminatory acts? He can go straight to you know where as far as I am concerned.
Leonard Pitts will spend the remaining days of his life pushing people's hot buttons, just to get a rise out of people on the issues that are important to him and his racist agenda. Some politically correct people will post his trash because they believe as he does. I think it's beneath decent people to diginfy what he has to say without identifying him for the type individual he is, and the agenda he pushes.
I have no earthly idea who the author is.
Really.
Never heard of him, to my knowledge.
I was commenting on what he had written, but thanks for your response. I guess I understand now, and yes, I read your statements, but I do decline to comment about someone that I wouldn't know from Adam.
If that makes me indecent, and a tool, well, I have been called worse.[;)]
I do think it revealing that any time that I have asked anyone to define torture, I get no response, though.
[:D] Obviously, I did not cover all the bases where just how well known Leonard Pitts is, so no, you don't fall into that category as I see it. I knew when I made that comment that there was the possibility that some people would not know of him. However, in the press, and to the not so politically correct, Pitts qualifies as one of the Justice Brothers. [:D][;)]
Torture? You'll know it when you're the victim! [:D]