Double Standard? No, I thought we might consider adopting the law of Austria that covers your article and jail you for this BS! I'll settle for choice.

Russ, did you even read past the headline?

Anyway, while I have minimal sympathy for this guy, I agree that he shoudl have a right to express whichever stupid opinions he likes. I certainly hope we don't end up with laws like that in the US, but based on the direction "progressive" politics are heading, if we do have laws like that in 50 years I won't be shocked.

Hi Russ,

Oh, what to say to you. I really don’t know if you’ve read this piece, but you seem to be implying that Kerry is guilty of pushing Nazi views in it. Why else would she be jailed for this article in Austria? Well she isn’t in my view, she’s raising a legitimate topic and doing it in a fairly even handed way. If you disagree with what she’s said please point it out and say why.

Hi Kerry,

This story has been all over the British press as was Mr Irving’s liable trial against Professor Deborah Lipstadt 5 years ago. There is definitely a tension between this story and the Mohammed cartoons. Why is OK to insult Islam in Denmark (actually IIRC the cartoons were reproduced in amongst other places Austria too) and yet an imprisonable offence to deny the Holocaust in Austria? If we in the west want to cite free speech in defence of those cartoons shouldn’t we respect it over those who deny the Holocaust.

There is unquestionably a gap between the US and Europe on freedom of speech. Holocaust denial is against the law in 9 European countries. In the UK, Blair is trying to pass a law against religious hatred in the face of some opposition. In Germany not only is it illegal to deny the Holocaust, but illegal to own Nazi memorabilia including anything with a swastika on it. In addition it’s illegal to do a Nazi salute or even the distinctive goose step. The World Cup in 2006 is to be held in Germany and English fans have be warned specifically about these laws. The walk and the salute have both been used to laugh at the Nazi’s in the UK (think Basil Fawlty) and insult Germans, but this will get them imprisoned in Germany 2006. Here’s the story.

Of course without these laws some fairly unpleasant people can get away with some fairly unpleasant things. Paolo Di Canio made a Nazi salute in Italy in front of football fans who really do have a fascist background. The story is here.

There are of course laws in many countries to stop people making specific threats against individuals and groups. The UK has a law against those inciting racial hatred and incitement to murder as can be seen from these two recent stories - one on Nick Griffin leader of the BNP and one on Abu Hamza a Muslim cleric. Muslims have with some justification in my opinion looked at the comments of Nick Griffin and wondered why he still hasn’t been convicted. Indeed I’ve seen it posted here that even the lightest of threats on the American President’s life is treated very seriously – a school kid writing a report on his perfect day including killing the President getting in trouble with the law is overkill to say the least.

OK back to David Irving – yes Austria had reason for this sort of law after the war, but 60 years later, enough is enough. Let fools be fools and be satisfied with pointing it out. Here’s Deborah Lipstadt on the subject – well worth a read. I’m squeamish about complete freedom of speech (try looking at some of the US neo Nazi sites and not being squeamish) and some of the things said in the US would land you in a British jail – but the line is hard to draw.

Finally Kerry I’d qualify what you say when you say

Liberals are usually libertarian on speech. Right up until you hit one of their "hot buttons"--like sexism, racism, or homophobia.

OK some are, but some aren’t. We all have our hot buttons but tolerance is only tolerance when someone says something we totally disagree with. Conservatives are no more tolerant than liberals when you push their hot buttons – some are tolerant, but let’s face it some aren’t.

Aaaaah, the willingness to understand insightful and inciteful. :-)

It's easy to see the double standard faults of others, yet deny our own. In the denial process we pick and choose what we believe in, think as right and wrong and what we may choose to fight and die for etc.

Kerry professes her christian faith yet supports the death penalty. I asked a question of her regarding the death sentence handed down in the Scott Peterson trial. Double standard; "I'm still waiting for an answer."

PS. I did read the complete article. Our constitution doesn't dictate what happens in Austria. A cleric askes for the death of a cartoonist, a TV evaangelist asks for/promotes the death of a South American president. Which recieved the most press in the US?

Thoughts are exactly that; "thoughts." There's no crime in having thoughts that run against the grain of socially acceptable behavior or the laws of a country, yet to express them in speech or action has dire consequences.

Kerry covered this in her first paragraph, yet if you care to read the articles here at PME, one would think Aaron and crew would be commending the Brit who's facing this jail sentence. What is "Freedom?"

I'm not making an argument for or against any action, yet I don't remember Islamist extremists rioting when the Taliban destroyed an ancient Budda in Afganistan. What is "Freedom?"

President Bush speaks; "more troops are needed in Darfur" what's he stumping for, the idiot of the year award? While some here may think I should be jailed, others may think W deserves twenty lashes, with public observance held at the Lincoln Memorial. These are expressed thoughts and as true as they may be, there are countries where I may be jailed or shot, yet here in America, double-standards or oxymoron, in time Danniele will be shouting praises to this idiot president. "What is Freedom?"

How many votes do we hear for a UAE company managing US ports? FYI: It's a struggle to be insightful without inciteful when commenting on "W." Scarier yet; "What is Democracy?"

Russ, the question I have for you (other than why you keep putting quotation marks around your own words) is as follows: What is your point?

Wandering_Brit:

I followed Irvings case out of curiosity, I read his Bio of Rommel, which was very good.

I take the American View, put your views on the public square and let the devil take the hindmost.

I think that Irving is an arrogant little twit and Debrorah Lipstadt is a vile individual, aside from that, in this country the Constitution does not protect you from being offended.

Bill

First; The words in quotes were not mine, not that I care if you understand.

Secondly; With which point do you have a question? Do you wish to start with Kerry's double standards while writing about double standards?

WB, stated well the neo-con position here re; hot-buttons. Kerry seems to express this issue is relegated to liberal democrats in much the same way she expresses any other view she has regarding a view she disagrees with.

Lets see now; the president asks the court to look at partial birth abortion, and how long has Alito been on the court? Weight the court to get a law passed...is this how it works?

"Anyway, while I have minimal sympathy for this guy, I agree that he shoudl have a right to express whichever stupid opinions he likes. I certainly hope we don't end up with laws like that in the US, but based on the direction "progressive" politics are heading, if we do have laws like that in 50 years I won't be shocked."

It doesn't surprise me when you asked "what's your point?" Your last sentence re; progressive politics says it all. Dick, we already have laws like the one in question in Austria and if you believe what your told here, they were legislated and passed by liberal democrats.

The presidents position on most issues falls within the boundaries of dictatorship so you can't hang the progressive label on him. The SCOUTUS has ruled on partial abortion, so in looking at the case again would you consider this political/judicial activism?

Russ,

Having been trained to analyze written English, I can tell you with no hesitation that you, in fact, have no discernible point. For future reference, you should be alert to that possibility when you are the only correspondent who still believes you have a point.

Secondly, I don't know why you are "still waiting for an answer" (an appropriate use of quotation marks, for your edification)as to the appropriateness of the death penalty for Scott Peterson (unless, of course, you read as badly as you write.) I have answered this question numerous times, but, once again, and just for you:

The death penalty is an appropriate instrument of justice for those who are convicted of a crime for which the law prescribes it. Christianity (on the Protestant and Pentecostal side, which do not generally hold the "seamless garment" dogma of the Catholic Church) is not disturbed by the execution of a guilty party.

The admonition in the Commandment is "thou shalt not MURDER" in the original language, not the more generalized "thou shalt not KILL." Murder is the specific act of taking an innocent life. Given the commandment's (you'll excuse the expression) "genesis," coupled with Jesus' insistence that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17), it seems evident that the directions given Noah after the flood are not set aside by Jesus. Noah and his family were instructed that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." I have yet to see convincing evidence that this command for capital punishment has been in any way set aside.

I would be happy to entertain a discussion on this off line, because, in my opinion, there is very little of the core question you raise that can be justified as "politics" rather than "theology."

The double standard here is, I think, perfectly clear. Muslims, reacting with outrage to a flat-out blasphemy against Islam, are considered primitive barbarians by the Western media (and, let's be fair, even without the destruction, "civilized" Europe thought the Muslims were all het up over nothing.) At the same time, the same Western media finds it difficult--if not impossible--to criticize a "civilized" European nation that passes a law criminalizing what is clearly political speech. Double standard.

As to the association with liberal democrats, I am just wondering aloud as to whether such folk who are so concerned with "hate crime" might be hard pressed to resist a law that went so far as to outlaw "hate thought" even in the most abstract form--such as the advancement of a ridiculous theory.

Finally, there is this odd bit:

"I'm not making an argument for or against any action, yet I don't remember Islamist extremists rioting when the Taliban destroyed an ancient Budda in Afganistan. What is "Freedom?""

Well, first, it's "Buddha," not "Budda." ("Budda" is like the voice of "Bahbra" Streisand. "Buddha" is the founder of Buddhism--hence the term, "Buddhism.")

Anyway, I have no idea why you would ever expect Islamicists--or even run-of-the-mill Muslims--to object to the destruction of statues of a false god (in their view, of course; not the Buddhists'.) Or is it that you think they are the same thing? (FYI, they are not.)

"I can tell you with no hesitation that you, in fact, have no discernible point."

In other news, water fell from the sky today. Scientists remain skeptical as to why.

"The double standard here is, I think, perfectly clear. Muslims, reacting with outrage to a flat-out blasphemy against Islam, are considered primitive barbarians by the Western media"

I don't know what western media you are observing but I would like a subscription. That comment seems far too much bolder then the reality.

"--to object to the destruction of statues of a false god (in their view, of course; not the Buddhists'.)"

No actually the Buddhists agree with Muslims on this one, Buddha is not a god. 'Prophet' would be a more accurate choice of words.

If you want to see how far hate-crime law supporters will take thought-crime laws, I submit to you the state of Belgium and it's Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism(CEOOR), which may be on the verge of outlawing the largest political party in the country a second time...for islamophobia in regards to thier stated immigration policies.

If you want double standards, that's also a good place to look for them as well. Watching how the CEOOR selectively enforces the law in Belgium is all the reason you'll ever need to oppose hate-crime legislature in every other country on earth.

"I would be happy to entertain a discussion on this off line, because, in my opinion, there is very little of the core question you raise that can be justified as "politics" rather than "theology.""

I gather from your statement you now are asking for separation of church and state? You would like to discuss this off-line so you can hide like a weasel? Your M.O. is to flip-flop between theology and politics, AKA; your Double-Standard.

You choose to place your literal reading and interpretation of commandments in front of the scripture that supports them. There are no commandments based on probable cause!

Alright Buddha; and the best you can do is correct spelling.

Russ,

You are not asking me a political question. You are using a political question to ask a specifically theological question, which wastes the time of the reader here.

I have no idea what you mean by "there are no commandments based on probable cause," with or without the inappropriate exclamation point.

And, for the record, whether I do so or not, alternatiing between one subject and another is not a "double standard."

By the way, what in the world do you mean by claiming I am placing my "literal reading and interpretation of commandments in front of the [S]cripture that supports them." ? I don't see how Scripture can be anything BUT "literal reading." That's the actual meaning of "literal." (From answers.com: "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.")

Thanks, MJ,

I had not heard of the Belgium law, but it does not surprise me.

By the way, I think you misunderstand my comment on Buddhism. While it is surely possible that Buddhists would share the moral outrage of Muslims at a blasphemy of the Prophet, I doubt very much that Islamicist muslims would have any objection whatsoever to the destruction of images of Buddha (who, whatever the Buddhists may think of him, is viewed by Islam as a "false god.")

My point was only that the Buddhists may well also consider Buddha to be a 'false god', since they don't worship him as a god. To Buddhists, Buddha is something to most closely resembles perhaps what a 'prophet' is to Muslims or Christians or Jews. Buddha is more like Confuscious is to Confuscism or Epictetus to Stoics.

If Muslims think Buddha is a 'false god' Muslims are wrong, no one contends that he is a deity. They may think he's a 'false prophet', that would be a valid opinion.

As MJ says the Buddha is not a God - there is no God in Buddhism. Buddha is a name for those who have become enlightened, the Buddha refers to the first person to become enlightened who was born Siddhartha Gautama and is also known as Shakyamuni. As Buddhism teaches non-attachment as part of the path to enlightenment the more spiritual developed someone is the less bothered they would be by blowing up the statue of the Buddha. Personally I was really pissed off when they blew up the Buddha not from a religious point of view, but from a humanist point of view. It was the desecration of art or philistinism by blowing up the large statue of Buddha in the world. As for being upset from a religious point of view - when Buddha was about to die his closest friend Annanda (who was not enlightened) was incredibly upset while others who were enlightened weren't really that bothered. Buddha said to Annanda, haven't you listened to what I've been saying, all things are impermanent.

Oh well, strive on with mindfulness.

Sorry I left a bit out - a good way of thinking about what Buddha is to Buddhists is to think of him like the first man to climb Everest who left handholds and ropes in certain sections to make it easier for those who followed. The Dhamma (Buddhist scripture) is like a book on mountain climbing and the Sangha (the spiritual community of Buddhists) are the mountain climbers. Together the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha are known as the three jewels and represented by the colours yellow, blue and red respectively which can be seen in and around many Buddhist shrines.

That's all very well and good, but the point is not what Buddhists think of Buddha, but what Muslims think of any figure that denies that Allah is the One True God and Mohammed is his Prophet. Islam has a significant dispute with Buddhism, and even more so with the Hinduism out of which it arose. Buddhism has no God; Hinduism is basically god on the "cafeteria" plan. Neither one fits the Islamic conception of the theological world; therefore, both are religions of infidels.

Which, to return to the point, are given no protection in Islam; the destruction of their special imagery has no reason to offend an Islamic sensibility. And, to get back to the original statement, can anyone help me comprehend what Russ was talking about when he brought this up?

Hi Kerry,

Yes point taken, Buddhists and Hindu's are not "people of the book" ie Christian or Jews who are thought of as nearly getting it right. If I can be presumious enough to speak for all us non people of the book, when I say how envious we all are that OBL really likes you compared to us. ;-)

On Russ, nope I've read it about half a dozen times and I can't work it out - I had wondered before others responded whether I wasn't getting it due to the American English cultural gap, but it looks like this is not the case.

No, WB,

As far as I can tell, your English comprehension--even of the American variety--is just fine.

It's just that it's difficult to make anything out of pure gibberish (without just flat-out cheating.)

Hi Bill,

I must say other than seeing Debrorah Lipstadt interviewed last night on the news (she came across quite well) I don't really know that much about her.

On David Irvings books I have seen it said that if they did a book burning of all the books he has sold it would be a very small fire that would only last about 10 minutes, which rather amused me (true or not).

As to OBL (or, as we seem to often see it, "UBL"), it isn't that he likes us. In fact, since we're all part of the same family (the Ishmael/Isaac/Adoptive lineage), he's even more irritated that we get it wrong.

It's like this. When you have a matter you consider to be vitally important, neutrality is less dire than internal betrayal. (As long as you don't take Israel's side, you'll probably be all right.)

WB, Thanks for the segue.

I'm aware that in my writing I do not express with clarity at times, although I do have a point most of the time, then there are times when the intent is to push a button and that too has a point.

In regard to the segue and Buddha I was reflecting on the article and double standards. When we choose to admit defects in character it's a bit easier to be tolerant of and helpful with others. What we think, how we speak and our path, or how we walk is necessary for peace.

There are time when we would like to and sometimes do pigeon-hole our spiritual walk in order to fight back, criticize and put-down others. When the vice president of the US can tell a fellow senator to "go fuck yourself" and feel justified in doing so along with denying a need to apologize, I question the path america is walking. I am specifically referring to the current ruling political administration in Washington today, with the spotlight on the executive branch.

Kerry, the positions you have taken in the past were both theological and political. It isn't appropriate to set aside theology when addressing this article. David Irvings thoughts are his, and his choice to speak them in a country where the subject he chose is unlawful isn't a double standard when compared to the blasphemous (within the views of some muslims) cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. There are no laws (at least none covering the cartoonist) that prohibit the material the cartoonist chose to produce. Your comments tend to lean against the media and the liberal thought (as you view it) process. Have you ever considered the intolerant view you portray? Intolerance, especially religious intolerance is evil. My comment in regards to Buddha wasn't referencing a god, it was a reference to intolerance.

"In the free marketplace of ideas, there will always be some that are obnoxious, insipid, or simply downright repulsive. Nonetheless, regulating such speech as Austria has done moves a society down a road that I doubt Americans will ever be willing to go. Already, there are those (among them the US Supreme Court) who object to the regulation even of sexual imagery involving children, arguing that so long as it is a fictional depiction, it cannot be criminalized. Surely a society that protects images of child pornography could never censor mere ignorant speech. Could it?"

Your specific religious affiliation practices this every day and they speak in ignorance, and intolerance while attempting to suppress and oppress others. When people are oppressed the outcome is at some point violence, and this is the case whatever their beliefs may be.

I see you writing this article in a similar paradoxical light as you see (as you stated)the western press. The extremists would like to deflect their problems. Their primary problem is intolerance and in many cases extreme ideology based on extreme theology. Innocents (the oppressed, impressionable and moderates) are swept up in the chaos.

The agenda of the extreme christian right is similar to that of any extremist group. Human and civil rights are of little concern. The voices heard are authoritarian and dictatorial and truth seldom escapes their lips regarding their true agenda of intolerance.

"The death penalty is an appropriate instrument of justice for those who are convicted of a crime for which the law prescribes it. Christianity (on the Protestant and Pentecostal side, which do not generally hold the "seamless garment" dogma of the Catholic Church) is not disturbed by the execution of a guilty party."

You make this statement as if christianity is solely american with the added need to segregate.

"By the way, what in the world do you mean by claiming I am placing my "literal reading and interpretation of commandments in front of the [S]cripture that supports them." ? I don't see how Scripture can be anything BUT "literal reading." That's the actual meaning of "literal." (From answers.com: "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.")"

The interpretation of Scripture never dictated punishment based on probable cause. There must be a witness or confession.

Hi Kerry,

I'd disagree with you that Russ is talking pure gibberish - some paragraphs I understand, but the majority I don't. I felt quite frustrated last night, Russ obviously has something to say, but I think he's trying to get too many ideas into too small a space, which makes it a little confusing.

On OBL, yes of course I was joking about him liking you more. To be honest I'm beginning to think he's not that keen on anyone much. On Jews, Christians and Muslims (if you'll forgive me, I hope, for being a bit cheeky) from someone standing outside of the circle it sometimes helps to think of them as variations on the Peoples Popular Front of Judea all shouting splitter at each other. Clearly the bombing of the dome of the al-Askari shrine in Samarra is good, but clearly sad, expression of this.

Lastly I didn't notice this earlier, but

Islam has a significant dispute with Buddhism, and even more so with the Hinduism out of which it arose.

now I'd be careful if I were you, a number of Buddhist sects would disagree quite strongly with the idea that Buddhism arose out of Hinduism. You could be subject to a Buddhist jihad. Which of course means a number of bald men will come around and meditate at you, sending positive thoughts and radiating thoughts of loving-kindness. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Hi Russ,

I've just seen your latest post, I'm about to go out, but I'll read it properly later.

WB,

Giggle. The "Buddhist jihad" sounds a lot like my church. Not that ALL the men are bald--just a sizable majority of those who are likely to be meditating at people.

Russ,

Um....well....

Nope. Still gibberish. But, just for fun, let's just go ahead and unpack a little of it:

"Have you ever considered the intolerant view you portray?" No, and I don't have to. ;-)

"My comment in regards to Buddha wasn't referencing a god, it was a reference to intolerance."

Perhaps. But in the form you chose to phrase it, it still didn't make any sense.

I don't have the patience to retype the whole paragraph here, and for some reason my system won't let me copy just a bit of the page, only all the comments at once. But you said something about my "specific religious affiliation" (which I would like you to give name to, so I know what you think you are talking about) doing...something. Whether it was regulating speech or protecting child pornography was not exactly clear. Could you elaborate on this accusation and give specific examples, please?

I am not making Christianity "American." I am simply noting that the "seamless garment" interpretation is uniquely Catholic as a theological tenet.

And, Russ? Just one more tiny little point. And it's (mostly) political. Could you apprise me of capital punishment sentences that were handed down based on probable cause and involved no witnesses or confession? Cause I sure never heard of them.

"I don't have the patience to retype the whole paragraph here, and for some reason my system won't let me copy just a bit of the page, only all the comments at once. But you said something about my "specific religious affiliation" (which I would like you to give name to, so I know what you think you are talking about) doing...something. Whether it was regulating speech or protecting child pornography was not exactly clear. Could you elaborate on this accusation and give specific examples, please?"

Kerry, While you take the time (impatiently I presume) to write a nine paragraph article full of double standard bullshit, you don't seem to have the patience to address the double standard bullshit that you ascribe to.

Your articles are constantly full of hypocritical trash, AKA; intolerance. In your statement; "Having been trained to analyze written English, I can tell you with no hesitation that you, in fact, have no discernible point. For future reference, you should be alert to that possibility when you are the only correspondent who still believes you have a point."

lets just say you missed a few training classes.

My opening statement addressing your article was to make a point (yes there is a point) around your hipocracy. This isn't about patience, it is to the point, about "willing" or "unwillingness" to address your comments and support your position. Do you know the difference (trained to analyze) between can and can't, or willing and unwilling?

Let me help you; willing or unwilling commits a person to responsibility for their actions.

In addressing your last responses, you stated earlier that you had already answered my question (I'm still waiting) on capital punishment sentences, and now you're not aware of any sentences handed down based on probable cause. I asked and the question is not verbatim; What's your position on the Scott Peterson sentence? You pretend that you're not aware of a sentence/s based on probable cause?

"I am not making Christianity "American." I am simply noting that the "seamless garment" interpretation is uniquely Catholic as a theological tenet."

Oh??

"The death penalty is an appropriate instrument of justice for those who are convicted of a crime for which the law prescribes it. Christianity (on the Protestant and Pentecostal side, which do not generally hold the "seamless garment" dogma of the Catholic Church) is not disturbed by the execution of a guilty party."

OK, trained to analyze based on a distorted ideology (this isn't math, parentheses first) try again! You were addressing christianity and the death penalty. Post your comment again and name the countries that support the death penalty.

If I were to accept your article at face value I might be willing to buy into some it, yet I have read many of your double-standard articles over the past few months and I'm not willing to buy into the hypocracy.

Save the unborn yet what happens to them after birth isn't my concern, support the death penalty, support an unjustified war (thousands killed) in Iraq, support the most corrupt government administration in your voting history yet you state;

"The admonition in the Commandment is "thou shalt not MURDER" in the original language, not the more generalized "thou shalt not KILL." Murder is the specific act of taking an innocent life. Given the commandment's (you'll excuse the expression) "genesis," coupled with Jesus' insistence that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17), it seems evident that the directions given Noah after the flood are not set aside by Jesus. Noah and his family were instructed that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." I have yet to see convincing evidence that this command for capital punishment has been in any way set aside."

and I would like to emphasize; "Jesus' insistence that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them" and you choose to ignore that Jesus expressed the most anger and frustration toward the double-standard finger pointers (pious self-righteous religious) who chose to highlight the sins of the thieves, murders, prostitutes, etc.

You state; "You are not asking me a political question. You are using a political question to ask a specifically theological question, which wastes the time of the reader here."

Would you choose to have the readers believe you were only writing from a political perspective and had set you theological views aside? Please refresh me if I'm incorrect; when you converted to christianity, did you not switch political parties? Will you be willing (in the future) to inform the readers when your topics are political or theological in nature?

Russ,

When I write an article, I have the luxury of writing, editing, and posting it, and the process usually works. When I try to reply in the comment section, very often my system will not allow me to do so, requires that I sign in again after I have written the comment, etc.--not to mention the problem I already mentioned, which is that I cannot highlight a piece of text to reply to without having to edit out everything else that's been said. So, if I comment, it takes a lot more time and often produces no result. So I try not to make it more difficult than it already is.

The next several paragraphs are gibberish, except where you quote me directly.

Then we come to a confusing comment concerning the Peterson case. Apparently you believe that "probable cause" is the same thing as "circumstantial evidence." Peterson was convicted on "circumstantial evidence." There were, in fact, witnesses called, who pieced together the circumstantial case. None of this addresses "probable cause," which is the suspicion of the police that there may be a reason for further investigationas in "probable cause affidavit," leading to a warrant, resulting in the gathering of evidence.

By the way, I don't know where you would get the idea that "what happens to them after birth isn't my concern." (Actually, I do. It's an extraordinarily common misconception about pro-lifers, perpetrated by the media every chance they get.) In fact, many religous couples seek unrelated adoptions, and many choose not to abort but instead to raise handicapped children. In fact, the post-Roe pro-life movment was initially populated almost entirely by religious people who had already been active in the protection and care of the handicapped. While I am not myself in a position to adopt at this time, I would certainly consider it in the future.

Your accusation of "hypocrisy" is predicated on differential interpretations of certain political facts--that the war in Iraq is "unjustified," that the Bush administration is the "most corrupt." I vehenently disagree with both claims. Since my interpretations of the events do not conflict with my stated standards, the accusation of "hypocrisy" has no merit. A conflict of opinions is not the same thing as a conflict of facts. The hypocrisy you allege is of opinion, not fact.

As to the theological/political distinction. I believe you were asking me to defend the death penalty based on a theological position. I did not (and do not) feel that theology alone is an appropriate use of this space. Theology may certianly be explained, if it is vital to the issue. But once a theological position is established, it is a waste of political time to focus the argument back on the theological question itself. Take the theology as premise; argue its effect, not its merit.

Kerry,

"Then we come to a confusing comment concerning the Peterson case. Apparently you believe that "probable cause" is the same thing as "circumstantial evidence." Peterson was convicted on "circumstantial evidence." There were, in fact, witnesses called, who pieced together the circumstantial case...."

I stand corrected, and no I don't believe they are the same. I was thinking circumstantial evidence and stating probable cause. With that said neither are sufficient for a capital punishment sentence.

"As to the theological/political distinction. I believe you were asking me to defend the death penalty based on a theological position. I did not (and do not) feel that theology alone is an appropriate use of this space. Theology may certianly be explained, if it is vital to the issue. But once a theological position is established, it is a waste of political time to focus the argument back on the theological question itself. Take the theology as premise; argue its effect, not its merit."

I like the way you hop-scotch your way through. You have addressed nothing and produced more hipocracy. I don't expect you to accept what you say and do as such because to do so would require personal responsibility.

Based on your availability lets put a hold on your pro-life movements until your future is alligned with your theological premises. The effects to date are horrendous, and if the actions were from a theologically sound base, there would be merit,and in case you don't understand, to place a child on the street without food, shelter or medical care, doesn't equal merit.

I guess on your behalf denial is an excuse for hipocracy, but for the record could you name one presidential admin. that was more corrupt than George W. Bush? I could win this hands down if I said "stupid" but I'm trying to give you a sporting chance.

Kerry,

Nice post, I basically agree with you here 100%. In particular, I think this looks really hypocritical after so much of Europe printed those cartoons as a demonstration of the principle of free speech. I was basically with them on that, but this is going to be especially galling to Muslims in light of the Islam's ongoing love affair with Judaism.

Now it looks like the Iranian papers printing Holocaust cartoons have a legitimate point to make, as ridiculous as it first seemed to me. I guess the real point here is that everyone is for free speech that offends someone else, and against that which offends them. Perhaps human beings simply aren't sophisticated enough to be consistent about these things.

In my opinion speech between adults should be very free in a legal sense, but on a personal level it comes with certain responsibilities. There is the responsibility to speak mindful of the effect you have, and I think that applies in all of these situations. Just because these attacks on free expression were wrong doesn't mean that the expressions were right.

This is often overshadowed by the liberty issue, but I think we are too often forgetful of the responsibility that comes with it. Sometimes our love of freedom leads us to defend expressions we find distasteful, and this is good, but we shouldn't forget our personal and cultural duties to each other. Speech is truly powerful, and it certainly can be destructive.

Russ,

I have two problems with the things you are saying. First, it's very hard to understand what you are saying. Second, you're raising issues that have little to do with the one at hand in an effort to point out Kerry's hypocrisy.

I can't follow your argument, but either way, I think you're ranging too far afield. Unless you can point out where Kerry has been in favor of restricting freedom of expression, you're just reaching. Also, you're talking about her instead of the topic. In fact, it sounds like you're resuming an ongoing debate about the quality of her character, which isn't really fair to her (or interesting to me).

wandering_brit,

Not only do you make excellent comments, but you have a patience that astounds me. I don't think I've ever seen you say something rude to anyone here, and that's something I can't say about myself. Honestly, I wish I could maintain like that.

Are you Buddhist? It sounds from some of your comments here that you may be. I could never see myself being religious, but that is the religion that I have the most respect for by far (based on my limited knowledge).

Before someone else says it: yeah, yeah, typical liberal.

Some Fella,

Thanks and I agree in part, actually close to all of what you stated.

"In fact, it sounds like you're resuming an ongoing debate about the quality of her character, which isn't really fair to her (or interesting to me)."

The law in Austria is a debateable issue, yet is it wrong? The manner in which Kerry wrote the article is hypocritical and in her words;

"As to the theological/political distinction. I believe you were asking me to defend the death penalty based on a theological position. I did not (and do not) feel that theology alone is an appropriate use of this space. Theology may certianly be explained, if it is vital to the issue. But once a theological position is established, it is a waste of political time to focus the argument back on the theological question itself. Take the theology as premise; argue its effect, not its merit."

It wasn't only the death penalty in which I took my stand, it was and has been her theological premise.

Kerry negates her opening sentence with the closing sentence of her first paragraph. As you stated and as WB has shown in his words and actions, how thoughts are expressed have a great impact on how we are viewed.

I'm not inclined to read what Mr Irvings views are. He's correct in that many Jews died of disease and starvation, and that's F'ing profound. It was his expression that garnered his sentence, and why?

There are certain comments by myself or anyone made against the POTUS that will prompt the Secret Service or FBI to make a visit to your residence. It's against the law to do so. I've only expressed, what's the problem, not an acceptable free market idea?

"Certainly, it is understandable that the governments of Austria (home nation to Hitler, source of eternal shame) and Germany (and we all know about that) would be super-sensitive to offensive speech regarding the Holocaust, but for those of us in democratic republics, there’s something disturbing about the existence of a law that essentially criminalizes bad scholarship and rank stupidity (after observing some of the offerings on late-night infomercials, one might think half the American economy might be felled by such laws!)"

This comment reeks of "rank stupidity," and beyond that I choose not to address the comment. To rank the citizens of Austria with Hitler compares to ranking all Islam with Osama bin Laden, which is being done in the US and is more rank stupidity.

There's enough information available in the world to show the pain and suffering caused by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Actually the information we see is physical and the citizens of Austria are not willing to be subjected to additional emotional pain by any individual stating how painful, devastating and destructive it wasn't.

Fella, if your idea of debate is simply for the excersize I understand your lack of understanding and interest.

Have you wondered what WBs responses may be if he set aside his practice of Buddhism? If you think I'm attacking Kerry's character then to some degree it's true, yet only from the standpoint of the incongruency/hipocracy between her stated theological position and her actions. Her actions begin many times with the articles she chooses to write.

We may at your choosing discuss religion at a later date. I do understand your lack of interest understandably ie. the Catholic Church instructing believers of Islam to practice what they preach.

"There's enough information available in the world to show the pain and suffering caused by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Actually the information we see is physical and the citizens of Austria are not willing to be subjected to additional emotional pain by any individual stating how painful, devastating and destructive it wasn't."

Opening sentence..."enough" I cut? , I thought I cut this because there is and never will be enough info to accurately describe the Jewish Holocaust.

Uh, Russ?

Once again, you have succeeded in producing a 100% meaning-free post.

Congratulations.

Thanks Sweetie! I noticed how quickly you produced the list of countries practicing christianity that also support the death penalty.

Judging from this site, most of the Christian countries in the world had a death penalty until about 15-25 years ago.

So this may be a sign of progressive, enlighted society.

Or it may be a liberal fad.

So tell me, if all the other countries jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?

What this has to do with thought crimes I do not know.

This is what I get for feeding trolls...

Start arguing with idiots and people will think you are one of them.

Hi Some Fella,

Thanks for the kind words. As for being rude to people, well I prefer not to be, but I’ve certainly got it in me. I once heard a saying I rather like – a gentleman is someone who doesn’t offend people accidentally. Calling someone a fucking idiot does make a point, it’s just that generally it’s not a point I choose to make. In addition the more often you do it the less meaningful that point is. It’s also used quite often to be intellectually dishonest, as in, I don’t like what you’re saying but I can’t be bothered to explain why you’re wrong is the message you want to send. In reality the truth is often I don’t like what you’re saying, but I don’t have the ability to explain why you’re wrong.

Re am I Buddhist – I was brought up vaguely protestant, am by nature devoutly atheist, but several years ago I got involved with Buddhism. Since Buddhism is a practice I’d have a problem calling myself a Buddhist right now – I drink, eat meat, haven’t meditated for a good couple of years and don’t believe in reincarnation. There are plenty of people out there who have a right to call themselves Buddhist and I’m not one of them. As I said by nature I’m atheist, so like you, I have a problem seeing myself as religious, but I have strong sympathies with Buddhism (and have in the past called myself Buddhist). Having studied it for a number of years and having a number of Buddhist friends I’m probably more knowledgeable than most on Buddhism and only really talk about it here when others bring Buddhism up. It’s not really relevant to most of what I post and labelling yourself tends to mean others pigeon hole you, often in an unhelpful way. Speaking of which…

Hi Russ,

Have you wondered what WBs responses may be if he set aside his practice of Buddhism?

wonder no longer, as I’ve said my Buddhist practice isn’t exactly at it’s strongest right now. What my responses are is a reflection of me not Buddhism. If an idea doesn’t stand up I won’t agree with whether it’s Buddhist or not. Since I’ve gone on rather a lot about Buddhism here I may as well include one last quote from the Buddha

Monks don’t accept what I say just out of respect for me. Just as gold is tested in the fire, test my words in the fire of spiritual experience.

w_b,

I'll try not to pigeonhole you, but it is instructive to see what makes people the way they are; I wouldn't be surprised if your studies of Buddhism has had some positive effect on you. On the other hand, maybe it was your character that drew you to it in the first place.

I am attracted to the open-ended nature of Buddhism, how it does not require any kind of fundamentalism or appeal to absolute authority. At least, that's its image in the West. I'm suspicious of the new age tendency to fall in love with exotic mysticism, so I don't know if Buddhism's image is mostly based on an ideal that is rarely approached or if it is a valid representation.

It is at least enheartening that there is no central church, although I suppose that depends on how you look at it. For instance, I think people are a little too quick to ignore the theocratic aspects of Tibetan society before the Chinese conquest.

Nevertheless, I am impressed by the sophistication of Buddhist ideas, which have a lot in common with Western existentialism. It seems vastly more modern than the desert monotheisms that seem to cause so much trouble. I've often wondered if (hoped) it could somehow replace them in the centuries to come. This is probably wishful thinking, because I don't think Buddhism has the, let's say, populist appeal of its Middle Eastern cousins. Just not enough zazz if you know what I mean.

Sorry to go so far off topic, but the main conversation seemed to be going nowhere, anyway.

Sorry, Russ, I had to look it up.

List of other countries that have the death penalty that also have majority Christian populations:

Bahamas, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Lesotho, Malawi, Philippines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Uganda

You're welcome.

Hi Kerry,

Firstly I've meant to say on a number of my comments and yet have still to say it - this was a very good initial post - thanks.

Secondly you have in the past suffered from that pigeon holing effect I've mentioned - I'm not sure if Russ is doing it now - I think his comments are well worth listening to - even if sometimes it's hard to hear them because of the static and you have to tune your ears in.

Lastly, I'm going to be a hypocrite. I've kinda sworn off posting on the death penalty for a few months yet I'm going to point something out now against the death penalty in the US. If you're listing countries perhaps you might want to consider this list - IIRC 70-80% of people executed in the last 5-6 years in the world have come from 3 countries - Iran, China and the US

Hi SF,

Yes I agree it's interesting and informative to hear the background to the opinions offered here. And no I didn't think you were going to pigeon hole me - a good half of people don't in my experience. You're right to be wary of new ageism and exotic eastern beliefs - there is a lot of misinformation that conveniently fits into peoples lives out there. Yes Buddhism has certainly influenced me but I've also been strongly influenced by John Stuart Mill, Wittgenstein, Plato, Luke Reinhart, The Illumiatus Trilogy, Feminism, Britain etc etc.

OK those were the quick answers to what you said. To be honest I could write a paragraph over each sentence. I'm surprised you've pick up the intellectual link between Buddhism and existentialism - as I understand it it's even stronger with the phenomenological philosophers Husserl and Heidegger - but while I've read them it was long before I knew anything about Buddhism so I can't speak from personal knowledge.

On Buddhism taking over the world - well I think there is more merit in Buddhism than any other religious belief so that would be alright with me. But then Kerry would say the same about Christianity and OBL would say the same about his version of Islam. I doubt that either Kerry or I would be happy standing on the same logic as OBL - actually to be fair to him, I doubt Osama would be happy on the same platform as Kerry and I.

Hi Russ,

It's been good to see you expand your ideas, in writing, in this thread. You said

I'm aware that in my writing I do not express with clarity at times, although I do have a point most of the time,

and I agree. But people can only see you have a point when you take enough time to explain your point.

Eighty percent of the world's executions have been in the US, Iran, and China?

Given that China is 20% of the world's population, I'm not surprised.

I, too, want to avoid a full-blown death penalty conversation. However, I will point out something that I recently learned which pertains to what has just been said. That statistic about China, the US and Iran performing 80% of the world's executions is a bit misleading, because China supposedly accounts for the vast majority of them. China officially reports about 5000 executions for 2004, but the estimates of human rights groups and the UN puts it at about double that. When I heard this, it really caught my attention. Ten thousand, that's just staggering. Most of those are for drug-related offenses. What boggled my mind was how my otherwise reasonable Chinese coworker/friend thought that this was perfectly acceptable.

SF,

Sorry, but 10,000 is nothing near "staggering" in China. China has, at last counr, over one BILLION people (342 million are listed as "available for military service" in the CIA factbook, by the way.)

That's roughly .001 percent of the population (less, actually, since the population is 1.3 billion; it's just easier to do the math with round numbers.) In the same year, the US had 59 executions, about .000019 percent of the population. Given the endelss appeals system, generous availability of lawyers, and strict rules about execution in the US which (to put it nicely) don't exist in most of China, the discrepancy is not surprising.

Still, in statistical terms, it's barely of significance. (By the way, China also has about 110 million abortions every year, according to its population bureau--about 11 percent of the population. A bit more statistically significant, and well ahead of the US's half of one percent.)

Hey ask your Chinese friend what the Protestant Reformation was--or the Ten Kingdoms, for that matter. You might find there's not a lot of history in China.

Let me know. I haven't asked the question in ten years. Things might have changed.

"Still, in statistical terms, it's barely of significance. (By the way, China also has about 110 million abortions every year, according to its population bureau--about 11 percent of the population. A bit more statistically significant, and well ahead of the US's half of one percent.)"

I guess the government wouldn't be very receptive to a long run of the "Vagina Monologues"?

Russ,

I've not seen the piece, but my impression is it's about sex. The Chinese policy is not against sex--it's against children.

Why is it you think they would oppose the play?