It's amazing how people who claim to be christians can defend Islam so vociferously. Behavior that they'd vehemently oppose if it was being engaged in by Jews or Christians, barely merits a passing mention when it's engaged in by Muslims.
Those on the left have gone to great lengths to oppose corporal punishment in schools or by parents, yet don't seem to be able to gin up the same outrage for this.
Some, like our friend Bubba, and to some extent you, chafes at referring to these people as animals, or sub-human. It never takes long for them to expose themselves as such. Ye shall know them by their fruits. How big a basket does one need?
"Behavior that they'd vehemently oppose if it was being engaged in by Jews or Christians..."
There is no possible way you can POSSIBLY be so entirely inept at understanding as to think this is a rational cment to make in an adult conversation.
You don't seriously think we who oppose the oppression of women, religious minorities, children and/or LGBTQ folk are suddenly okay with it if it's being done by Muslim extremists, do you?
Don't be obtuse or make intentionally false and slanderous claims.
Of course, we consistently are opposed to ALL harm to innocents, ALL oppression of minority groups, women, children or anyone and it doesn't matter which religious extremists are doing the oppression, causing the harm.
That is the advantage of a consistent moral groundwork.
Retract your ridiculously false claim and apologize.
"You don't seriously think we who oppose the oppression of women, religious minorities, children and/or LGBTQ folk are suddenly okay with it if it's being done by Muslim extremists, do you?"
1. No. 2. I think that the problem isn't how you feel about "oppression", but how you respond (or don't) to "oppression". 3. Your insinuation that it's only Muslim "extremists" is amusing given the massive show of public support for Hamas. 4. It's much more the fact that y'all will loudly protest "oppression" by certain groups, while you'll "oppose" it silently and privately for other groups. 5. When you place these recent events in the context of "oppression", you ignore so many facts that are relevant to what's happening. 6. I still haven't seen one place where you've specifically said anything negative about the brutality of Hamas attack on innocent civilians as a stand alone statement.
In my case, it's because I acknowledge the undeniable reality that members of Hamas and those who live in Gaza are, in fact, humans. They are humans created in the image of YHWH who are not beyond redemption. They/their actions are barbaric, evil, vile, and unconscionable. They are without a doubt sinful. Yet, none of that should deny the reality that they are human, not animals.
"Of course, we consistently are opposed to ALL harm to innocents, ALL oppression of minority groups, women, children or anyone and it doesn't matter which religious extremists are doing the oppression, causing the harm."
Of course, you just stay silent about your distress depending on who perpetrates the "oppression".
"That is the advantage of a consistent moral groundwork."
Yet, strangely enough, you can't define this "moral framework" in a way that it becomes a universal, objective standard.
"Retract your ridiculously false claim and apologize."
There was no false claim made, therefore no false claim to retract. The fact that you haven't written any blog posts or FB post decrying the barbarism, pretty much makes my point. The fact that even now, you can't simply call out Hamas for their unprovoked, barbarous, actions without equivocation.
It doesn't say, "know them by their biological makeup". It says, "ye shall know them by their fruits." No one is beyond redemption if they are so-called. This might be a case where these cretins are not part of the Elect, and thus, not likely to ever bee redeemed.
But that's not the point here. Because their actions are so heinous, so blatantly vile and evil and because they perpetrate them not only without remorse, but because they feel called to do so, I will not regard them as human. There's a point to this. Without fail, any act of grace toward these people has resulted in that grace being abused. They pervert it so as to buy time to re-arm and to better prepare for the next strike. They are consistent in their planning to fulfill their most evil directive. So, I will not count myself among those willing to give them any quarter. They must be hunted down and destroyed with extreme prejudice until all those who remain yet untouched will come to believe the only way they can avoid their own demise is to reject their hatred and desires to murder. That means the unconditional surrender to OUR terms by those who have not yet been destroyed.
Only then can they regain recognition as human beings. It's what "proportional response" looks like.
Dan's lamentations are a joke. There have been no "oppression" of anyone by those Dan constantly holds up as guilty of being oppressors, which comes anywhere near the degree of oppression imposed on non-muslims by muslims. Thus, to whine about "oppression" yet not be screaming constantly about the actions of Hamas and their supporters does not suggest a truly "consistent" "moral framework".
First, all humans are created in the image of YHWH bear His image. This defines human life as intrinsically valuable.
The problem is that you certainly have no knowledge of who the "elect" are, so your point seems absurd. Very much like "kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.".
How you choose to "regard" them is immaterial. Your "regard" has no meaning outside of yourself, and carries no weight with anyone else. The issue is how YHWH "regards" people, not you.
In any case, the differentiation is between those who are actively engaging in attacks against Israel. they are placing themselves in the position of risk and deserve whatever happens to them. Although, they are still "human". Where some of us have a problem is with the advocating of indiscriminate killing of anyone and everyone who is currently is Gaza.
One example. There are most certainly small children who will be killed if the IDF takes no precautions and their parents don't evacuate them. Surely these children are not "animals", surely they deserve an opportunity for life, don't they?
Obviously, Hamas has the ability to end this carnage instantly. They can give back the hostages, get rid of their weapons, and surrender.
Despite all of that, they remain "human" beings created and bearing the image of YHWH.
You keep beating that drum and despite its truth, it's totally irrelevant here. I don't interfere with what God's plans are. I leave Him to His own devices on the assumption He knows what He's doing. I can only deal with circumstances as they present themselves and take action on the basis of the best outcomes for the most people. I don't believe I'm under any obligation to allow family and friends (be they personal or foreign allies) to be indiscriminately murdered for the sake of who may or may not be innocent among those doing the murdering.
"The problem is that you certainly have no knowledge of who the "elect" are..."
Not having claimed to have any, no "problem" exists with my speculation about whether or not they might be among the Elect. I stated it as a possible bit of evidence against the notion...not anything definitive. What's more, we know very little about who among the population is "innocent" as regards supporting the actions of Hamas or not. Keep in mind, the West Bank is controlled more by Fatah. Do you think they've abandoned their Jew-hatred? The difference is merely they're more secular in comparison to Hamas. But they're otherwise cut from the same Jew-hating cloth.
So, you have no knowledge there exists ANYONE among the so-called pallies who opposed those who are doing the actual indiscriminate killing...otherwise known as "murder".
The Israelis are incredibly outnumbered and have to guard against attack from all sides. For them to risk their lives against the possibility "innocents" might be killed is almost suicidal. Yet they constantly go above and beyond with their warnings to evacuate where they intend to strike, which, by the way, mitigates their chances of success all by itself. We know that some refuse to leave despite these warnings. It is they who are responsible for the deaths of any true innocents. Not the Israelis. They are not "indiscriminately" killed. They are murdered by their own parents and rulers by refusing to leave when warned against staying.
"One example. There are most certainly small children who will be killed if the IDF takes no precautions and their parents don't evacuate them. Surely these children are not "animals", surely they deserve an opportunity for life, don't they?"
Clearly their own people, the adults with the greatest responsibility to provide that opportunity, don't believe themselves so obligated. The IDF, in the meantime, are risking their lives to provide that opportunity for their own children and that becomes less possible if they're required to back off because the pallies are hiding behind theirs as they murder.
This is not a situation of Israel's making. Hamas will NOT end this carnage, but will continue to perpetuate and exploit it. They have forsaken their humanity by acting like vicious, rabid animals, murdering without remorse but with jubilation. Whose image they bear is not a factor in choosing how to deal with their unique barbarism, for they are not children of God nor do they care to be. So you can nitpick about whether or not they are human. I'm focused on the victims of their animal behavior and don't see any reason to believe it will ever end without their complete destruction.
2. I think that the problem isn't how you feel about "oppression", but how you respond (or don't) to "oppression".
I respond the same: Oppression is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter WHO is doing the oppressing or why, it's wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong. Period. Hiding behind innocent people putting their lives at risk is wrong. Targeting hospitals with innocent people in them because you think the "bad guys" are hiding there is wrong.
That's the advantage of being consistent in one's position. You have no need to ask me if I think causing harm to innocent people is wrong. I consistently say yes.
It's Israel, Hamas, conservatives and terrorists who think there are times we can reasonably attack and knowingly kill innocent people because you make exceptions as to when it's wrong, whereas folk like me always say it is wrong.
That isn't to compare you to Hamas or terrorists. It's noting the reality that you both have times you think it's acceptable to cause harm to innocents. Am I mistaken?
Yet, strangely enough, you can't define this "moral framework" in a way that it becomes a universal, objective standard.
I DO define the moral framework in very simple and easy-to-understand consistent messaging: IT IS WRONG to cause harm to innocent people. Period.
None of us can prove our moral opinions with an objective standard unless one, like me, accepts the premise that it is always wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That's a moot point.
The fact that you haven't written any blog posts or FB post decrying the barbarism, pretty much makes my point. The fact that even now, you can't simply call out Hamas for their unprovoked, barbarous, actions without equivocation
The fact is, as you no doubt know by now, that I've been tending to my dying mother and then making arrangements for her funeral and providing support for my family in the midst of that, in addition to my work and church responsibilities.
The fact is, we've agreed that no one can or does make comments on every possible topic.
The fact is that I HAVE condemned Hamas for their barbarous attacks on innocent people. I haven't done so on my blog for the entirely rational reasons explained above.
This is the advantage, once again, to having a consistent moral position on the harm of innocent people. You don't need to ask consistent people if they are opposed to harming innocent people. And this is the advantage of embracing grace.
It's much more the fact that y'all will loudly protest "oppression" by certain groups, while you'll "oppose" it silently and privately for other groups.
Again, no one comments on ALL possible topics. That would be an inane position to take. I TEND to spend most of my time taking stands about policies in the US, where I have a voice in the policies.
6. I still haven't seen one place where you've specifically said anything negative about the brutality of Hamas attack on innocent civilians as a stand alone statement.
Doesn't matter if you haven't seen it. The attacks by Hamas on innocent people were evil and a grotesque injustice. Period. Because, of course they were. How could one possibly know that I think so? Because I am always opposed to harming innocent people.
"You keep beating that drum and despite its truth"
At least you acknowledge the Truth. I see no reason to go any further into your comment. The very notion that the Truth is irrelevant or doesn't apply sees absurd and not worth dignifying with further response.
"I respond the same: Oppression is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter WHO is doing the oppressing or why, it's wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong. Period. Hiding behind innocent people putting their lives at risk is wrong. Targeting hospitals with innocent people in them because you think the "bad guys" are hiding there is wrong."
No, you don't. You are quick to jump to conclusions, and slow to retract those conclusions, when you believe that the "oppressor" is part of certain groups you disagree with. You are slow, or silent, when the "oppressor" is part of a group you support or agree with.
"That's the advantage of being consistent in one's position. You have no need to ask me if I think causing harm to innocent people is wrong. I consistently say yes."
It's also a cop out which allows you to stay silent and hide behind your vague, bland, universal condemnation when these acts are done by those you agree with, support, or are allied with. While loudly and repeatedly attacking those with whom you do not agree, support, or ally with.
"It's Israel, Hamas, conservatives and terrorists who think there are times we can reasonably attack and knowingly kill innocent people because you make exceptions as to when it's wrong, whereas folk like me always say it is wrong."
What an interesting notion. That Israel is not allowed to respond when it is attacked, and that Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent. This makes my point. You refuse to say boldly that Hamas bears responsibility for what's happening because Hamas started the chain of events that led to what is happening in Gaza. Your refuse to specifically call for Hamas to unilaterally stop their attacks, stop using civilians as human shields, and immediately release the kidnapped. You remain silent when Hamas stockpiles supplies with the intent of continuing to attack innocent civilians, instead of distributing those supplies to those in Gaza. You just can't single out Hamas and acknowledge what they have done, are doing, and will do, without equating Israel's response to their attacks as being equal.
"That isn't to compare you to Hamas or terrorists. It's noting the reality that you both have times you think it's acceptable to cause harm to innocents. Am I mistaken?"
No. But you just can't seem to be able to criticize Hamas specifically for believing exactly this.
'I DO define the moral framework in very simple and easy-to-understand consistent messaging: IT IS WRONG to cause harm to innocent people. Period."
Which is not in any way shape or form, universal, objective, or enforceable on those who disagree.
"None of us can prove our moral opinions with an objective standard unless one, like me, accepts the premise that it is always wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That's a moot point."
Irrelevant. Hamas is quite clear that they DO believe that is is acceptable, even imperative, to cause harm to innocent people as well as to subject their own citizens to harm as a way to get good PR and help motivate their followers. You can't say that they are wrong, because you admit that your personal, subjective, moral framework isn't and can't be universal. That it only applies to those who believe "like" you.
"The fact is, as you no doubt know by now, that I've been tending to my dying mother and then making arrangements for her funeral and providing support for my family in the midst of that, in addition to my work and church responsibilities."
The fact is that, your silence on the actions of Hamas and groups like them predates this recent barbarism. Strangely enough, you've managed to find the time for multiple FB posts about all sorts of things since October 7th, yet not one on the topic of the barbarous, unprovoked attack by Hamas.
"The fact is, we've agreed that no one can or does make comments on every possible topic."
Yet you almost always seem to post a rant any time someone or some group you perceive to be "conservative" does anything that involves violence or "oppression", yet virtually never do so when it's someone or some group that you support or is on "your side".
"The fact is that I HAVE condemned Hamas for their barbarous attacks on innocent people. I haven't done so on my blog for the entirely rational reasons explained above."
Of course you have. It's convenient that you've chosen to do so in a manner which is impossible to verify.
"This is the advantage, once again, to having a consistent moral position on the harm of innocent people. You don't need to ask consistent people if they are opposed to harming innocent people. And this is the advantage of embracing grace."
Wow, that's pretty self serving, prideful, and superior.
"Again, no one comments on ALL possible topics. That would be an inane position to take. I TEND to spend most of my time taking stands about policies in the US, where I have a voice in the policies."
My point exactly. You tend to spend you time remaining silent on things that are engaged in by people you support. Of course a quick scroll through your recent blog posts calls this claim into question. Of course you could just admit that your outrage is selective and primarily aimed at those your disagree with politically, ideologically, or theologically and acknowledge that you remain silent when those on your side of those categories engage in certain actions.
"Doesn't matter if you haven't seen it. The attacks by Hamas on innocent people were evil and a grotesque injustice. Period. Because, of course they were. How could one possibly know that I think so? Because I am always opposed to harming innocent people."
Because we just have to trust you when you're silent. But at least you finally do acknowledge the "evil" of Hamas without trying to mitigate it with false equivalencies.
"Embrace grace, friends."
You don't and we're not. So why should we do what you won't do.
I have to note that Dan has also ignored the numerous instances of antisemitism and outright hatred for Jews being engaged in by American leftists, and academic institutions. It's selective outrage.
"What an interesting notion. That Israel is not allowed to respond when it is attacked, and that Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent..."
This is not a good faith, rational, adult response to my actual position, which again, is consistent and crystal clear.
It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to innocents.
I did not ever say that Israel doesn't have a right to defend themselves. Have I?
What HAVE I said?
It's wrong to deliberately harm innocents. Period.
Israel, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Nicaraguan, US citizens can defend themselves BUT not by deliberately killing innocents.
Surely you don't think that defending one's self requires causing deliberate harm to innocents?
That would be a game school level reasoning. As my dear conservative sainted mother would tell you: two wrongs don't make a right.
Likewise for your false claim that I've said Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent. ONLY insofar as both are acting out the notion that it's sometimes acceptable to kill innocents. In that instance, they are literally morally equivalent.
"This is the advantage, once again, to having a consistent moral position on the harm of innocent people. You don't need to ask consistent people if they are opposed to harming innocent people. And this is the advantage of embracing grace."
Which seems like a simply rational observation.
You responded...
"Wow, that's pretty self serving, prideful, and superior."
Do you think noting having a steady, consistent moral philosophy is self serving and prideful?
"This is not a good faith, rational, adult response to my actual position, which again, is consistent and crystal clear."
If you say so.
"It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to innocents."
In this instance, we know that Hamas has intentionally used "innocents" as human shields. They have intentionally placed their important facilities in places where "innocents' are and have not allowed the "innocents" to leave. Are you really suggesting that Israel should not take the steps to eradicate Hamas, and rescue those innocents who've been kidnapped because Hamas uses "innocents" as human shields? That Hamas should be free to continue it's barbarism then hide behind "innocents" to avoid justice? How is that just? If Israel warns the innocents that they should leave, and takes every precaution to protect them, is that really "intentional"? As per Hamas leaders, Hamas intends to sacrifice women, children, and the elderly to further it's aims, yet you don't criticize that.
"I did not ever say that Israel doesn't have a right to defend themselves. Have I?"
Not exactly. You appear to be saying that Israel can defend itself only if they can do so with zero civilian casualties while civilian casualties are part of Hamas' strategy, wouldn't your prescription pretty much stop Israel from defending itself?
"Israel, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Nicaraguan, US citizens can defend themselves BUT not by deliberately killing innocents."
With the exception of your one comment this morning, when have you publicly and specifically excoriated Hamas for intentionally targeting "innocents" both Israeli, tourists to Israel, and their own people?
"Surely you don't think that defending one's self requires causing deliberate harm to innocents?"
No, although sometimes harm to "innocents" is unavoidable for numerous reasons. Yet nations must defend themselves, right?
"That would be a game school level reasoning. As my dear conservative sainted mother would tell you: two wrongs don't make a right."
Yet, one vile, evil, barbaric, wrong unpunished doesn't make a right either.
"Likewise for your false claim that I've said Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent. ONLY insofar as both are acting out the notion that it's sometimes acceptable to kill innocents. In that instance, they are literally morally equivalent."
The fact that you choose not to see the difference between the intentional targeting of "innocents", and well as the using of "innocents" for human shields on Hamas part and the Israeli attempts to avoid harming "innocents" while still trying to defeat Hamas, is truly childish.
FYI, if noncombatants support the aims and methods of Hamas, cheer and celebrate when Hamas kills innocent Israelis, and willingly allow their children to join the terrorist wing of Hamas, are they really "innocents"?
"Do you think noting having a steady, consistent moral philosophy is self serving and prideful?"
No, I think having a subjective, moral philosophy anchored completely in your personal, subjective, fallible, Reason, and acting as if that subjective moral philosophy should be adhered to by others is. I certainly think bragging about it is.
"Of course you could just admit that your outrage is selective and primarily aimed at those your disagree with politically, ideologically, or theologically and acknowledge that you remain silent when those on your side of those categories engage in certain actions."
It has nothing to do with not speaking out with those who agree with me politically, ideologically or theologically.
Understand?
If an Amish guy, a Democrat or a liberal were to advocate targeting and killing innocent people, I'd condemn them. Period.
It's not about partisanship, it's about behavior.
Again, you can reason better than this, Craig. Try to argue in good faith. Be better.
Also, it IS true that none of us spend too much time talking about the politics of other countries. Nicaragua is a mess right now. Guatemala may or may not have signs of hope for a better, more free nation. China is persecuting a religious minority. None of us comment on every bad thing.
I tend to comment on ideals and policies at play in our nation.
We need improvements in our border policies that do a better job of welcoming at least refugees and struggling immigrants. We need better policies around employment for folks with disabilities. We need more affordable housing. We need to get rid of the most corrupt of politicians, Democrat, GOP or otherwise.
When Democrats are as corrupt as Trump (or anything like that), I will condemn the Democrats. Hamas attack was diabolical and evil. Israel's response has been problematic in the extreme. Israel will not defeat Hamas by engaging in similar tactics.
I disagree with wrong behavior, regardless of the group committing the actions.
Like Jesus taught us, I am allied NOT based on religion or ideologies. I strive to be allied with the poor and marginalized, as Jesus taught.
"Dan's blog is devoid of what he claims he primarily comments on unless one goes back to May 5, 2023."
Indeed, look back at my blog posts back to (and before) May 5. It's not about allying based on party politics. It's about allying consistently with the poor and marginalized. I would hope fellow Christians could respect that.
I wanted to clarify something. When I said that you would not allow Israel to respond to these barbaric attacks, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
My point is that you are placing arbitrary restrictions and limits on Israels ability to respond. While we know that Israel is already trying to limit casualties to non combatants, we also know that Hamas is intentionally putting noncombatants in positions where they will be harmed. This is intended to use Israels regard for innocent life against Israel, and to limit Israel's response and protect the Hamas terrorists.
You seem to be suggesting that Israel can only respond when they are 100% sure that noncombatants will not be harmed at all. With Hamas, this standard is impossible to meet, which means that your standard renders Israel functionally unable to respond, or limits their response while protecting those who committed barbaric atrocities against those who are truly innocent.
It's interesting that your moral philosophy of no intentional harm, in this case actually facilitates those who did intentionally harm "innocents" in particularly barbaric ways in avoiding being held to account for their barbaric actions. It also places additional "innocents" at risk of harm as those who committed the Oct 7 barbarities absolutely will continue to harm innocents, and are actually doing so with additional unguided rockets being launched at civilian areas even as the IDF hunts them down. Your insistence further makes it harder to rescue that hostages, and exposes members of the IDF to greater risk of harm themselves.
If you were consistent, you'd be calling for Hamas to immediately stop their attacks on "innocents", release all hostages, and turn themselves if to be held to account for their actions. You don't seem to understand that Hamas has the ability to stop the harm to the "innocents" in Gaza any time they want. But they choose not to. You choose not to notice this seeming flaw in your subjective moral philosophy.
Maybe it's the Islamic notion of Jihad that's the problem. They don't see non Muslims as "innocents" and are able to engage in all sorts of barbaric behavior under the cover of Jihad without subjecting themselves to your subjective moral philosophy.
"My point is that you are placing arbitrary restrictions and limits on Israels ability to respond."
Not arbitrary at all. We have international war crime laws that limit where and how a nation can attack.
Hamas clearly broke these laws, standards. I believe that Israel has, as well... at least according to some experts.
I find it strange that anyone who rightly objects to Hamas deliberately attacking innocent people would object to criticism of Israel for doing the same.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right AND two wrongs don't make the second wrong "just."
"Not arbitrary at all. We have international war crime laws that limit where and how a nation can attack."
Oh, now you're appealing to "international war crime laws", instead of your personal subjective moral code. Please cite the specific war crime laws that Israelis have violated? Is Hamas bound by these "international war crimes laws"?
"Hamas clearly broke these laws, standards. I believe that Israel has, as well... at least according to some experts."
Which is it? Do you simply "believe" this to be True, given your encyclopedic knowledge of "international war crimes laws"? Or do you expect me to believe your unnamed, anonymous "experts"?
"I find it strange that anyone who rightly objects to Hamas deliberately attacking innocent people would object to criticism of Israel for doing the same."
You have yet to demonstrate that Israel is "doing the same". Clearly Israel is taking multiple precautions and making all sorts of efforts to avoid noncombatant casualties. But, let's ignore the fact that Hamas wants these noncombatant casualties. It's literally their strategy.
"Again, two wrongs don't make a right AND two wrongs don't make the second wrong "just.""
Because punishing those responsible for barbaric attacks on "innocents" isn't "just".
"Indeed, look back at my blog posts back to (and before) May 5. It's not about allying based on party politics. It's about allying consistently with the poor and marginalized. I would hope fellow Christians could respect that."
Which doesn't invalidate my point. That you've been silent on these issues for quite some time, and that you've never approached stuff by "your side" with the same anger and vehemence that you do for the other side.
"Craig, stop it. Nowhere in the world have I said it's wrong to punish those who commit atrocities. No where, and you know it."
Not exactly, you've just said that it's wrong to kill "innocents" while punishing atrocities.
"This is not arguing in good faith."
If you say so.
"I'm quite specifically condemning the killing of innocents. THAT is the part that is "the wrong.""
Interesting. You've previously been very specific that you were condemning the "intentional" killing of innocents", but now you've changed your standard and are condemning any "killing of innocents". Which, of course, puts even more restrictions on Israel in it's hunt for the barbarians who brutally slaughtered, innocent women and children.
"Be better than this, Craig."
Better than what? Advocating for justice being done for the barbaric attack on Oct 7? For understanding that Hamas is responsible for the "innocents" being killed in Gaza (or at least the majority of them). For understanding that there is a difference between collateral damage aftre making multiple attempts to get noncombatants out of the area, and indiscriminately targeting civilian areas with unguided rockets, and massacring innocent women and children in barbaric and horrific ways?
"It has nothing to do with not speaking out with those who agree with me politically, ideologically or theologically. Understand?"
Sure. It's just a coincidence that you've never attacked the behavior of a leftist government official, government, or anyone on your side with the vehemence you save for those your perceive are "right wing". It's just a coincidence that you've jumped to the conclusion that certain "mass shooters" were automatically "right wing extremists", then remained silent when we find out that they are actually leftists. It's just a coincidence that you are much more vehement in your criticism of "christian" extremists, than Muslims. It's all just a coincidence.
"If an Amish guy, a Democrat or a liberal were to advocate targeting and killing innocent people, I'd condemn them. Period."
Yet you never do. Of course, that's because none of those people would ever do those things.
"It's not about partisanship, it's about behavior."
Really. When the left wing dude shot up the Christian school, where was your public outrage? Where was the blog post of FB post? Where was the comment on anyone else's blog condemning him in the same terms you use for the J6 peaceful protesters?
"Also, it IS true that none of us spend too much time talking about the politics of other countries. Nicaragua is a mess right now. Guatemala may or may not have signs of hope for a better, more free nation. China is persecuting a religious minority. None of us comment on every bad thing."
Whatever. I guess pointing out that those are all leftist oppressive regimes has nothing to do with your silence. Hell, conservatives have been talking about political persecution and slave labor in China for years. Again, conservatives have been talking about the socialist disaster in Nicaragua for years.
But this is irrelevant. What's relevant right now is the left wing antisemitism, and support for Hamas and the Biden administration spending like a drunken sailor to pay for other people's wars by piling crippling debt on our grandchildren.
"I tend to comment on ideals and policies at play in our nation."
Pride and hubris much, or just an excuse for your silence of leftist/Muslim actions?
"We need improvements in our border policies that do a better job of welcoming at least refugees and struggling immigrants. We need better policies around employment for folks with disabilities. We need more affordable housing. We need to get rid of the most corrupt of politicians, Democrat, GOP or otherwise."
Which is irrelevant an doff topic. But by all means, show me a link to the last post you wrote excoriating a DFL politician accused of corruption.
"When Democrats are as corrupt as Trump (or anything like that), I will condemn the Democrats. Hamas attack was diabolical and evil. Israel's response has been problematic in the extreme. Israel will not defeat Hamas by engaging in similar tactics."
You say you will, but you don't. You just remain silent.
"I disagree with wrong behavior, regardless of the group committing the actions."
Because repeating bullshit makes it less bullshit.
"Like Jesus taught us, I am allied NOT based on religion or ideologies. I strive to be allied with the poor and marginalized, as Jesus taught."
I take it back, Craig. After reading your exchange with Dan, it's clear those like Dan are the true animals.
More to the point, Dan is not what he claims to be, because what he claims to be doesn't align with his stupidity as expressed just in this thread alone. Let's review:
"Oppression is always wrong."
Does this include the imprisonment...denial of personal freedom...and possibly forced labor as is routine in our prison system? Does this include the forcing of a perverse immorality to be accepted as moral and normal upon those who actually abide the Will of God?
This is the same as "violence is always wrong" when law enforcement routine requires violent actions must be employed to subdue criminals and protest the public. Violence was used during our Civil War in order to free the enslaved and restore the Union.
Dan throws around words and terms in this way to absolve him from being unequivocal in his condemning of those who are most worthy of condemnation, while abusing them to condemn those who are doing no wrong. It's his way. His modus operandi. It's how he lies about those with whom he disagrees while defending the vile he favors.
Next, given Dan posted here on the 28th of Oct and then posted about his mother's passing on the 29th, I don't see how her situation could have prevented an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas devoid of any moral relativity with regard to any other people. The actions of Hamas are wholly and completely unlike anything Israel has ever been proven to have done, and Israel's actions have always been in response to the evil of Hamas. If there was any confusion about the cut of Dan's jib, this exploitative defense should clear it up nicely.
Moving on, overall, Dan's position is always one requiring his head be rammed as high up his backside as he can possibly so ram it. There it remains while all the world moves in manner he cannot clearly see because he refuses to see it clearly. While so contorted, he insists he's a living expression of Christian teaching, and truth suffers as a result. Indeed, he ignores it outright in order to posture as something he's not close to being.
Dan whines about harming people. Dan's view of the world...his twisted understanding of the God about Whom he only pretends to care...causes great harm to all manner of people, both physically and spiritually.
Finally, Dan's made a variety of unsupported claims in this thread. Note how none of his comments have been deleted. If his personal situation denies him the ability to do what he constantly demands of others, it's best he say nothing. We already know he provides no evidence to counter claims made by us. But by his standards and demands, he should never make a single claim without supporting evidence.
You write as if you suffer from an either/or mindset.
Dan wants us to watch out for innocent Palestians, so he must think that Israel must do nothing.
Dan believes that innocent Palestians should not be killed deliberately, therefore, he must conflate Hamas' actions and Israel's actions.
Dan recognizes international laws about the deliberate targeting of civilians, therefore he must be opposed to justice for Israel.
Dan hasn't commented on his blog (during these last two months while he was tending to his dying mother), therefore, he must be secretly defending Hamas.
Dan doesn't write posts on his blog when some Muslim extremists do bad things, therefore, he's "silent" when "his side" does bad things.
Or, as Marshal puts it,
Dan wants to protect innocent Palestinians therefore he must be an anti-semite.
This is simply not adult-level reasoning or good faith arguments.
First of all, violent religious extremists (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) are not "my side." They are specifically NOT my side, as I'm opposed to violent religious or otherwise extremism.
Secondly, I tend to speak to principles and philosophies on my blog, not specific local news or specific politicians (although Trump was such an extreme threat to our free Republic, I did speak to his atrocious behavior/policies at least occassionally, and I've addressed Biden and Obama's bad policies, as well. But that's not the thrust of my blog.
That is, I'm not talking about the news story of Hamas terrorism or Israel's probable war crimes in response. I'm talking about the principles of choosing to cause no deliberate harm to innocents, about the principles of allying with the poor and marginalized and why that's rational and moral and Christian.
Finally, I'm opposed to Hamas terrorism, of course, and I'm opposed to Israel's probable war crimes in response, of course, in part because it's simply wrong to deliberately choose to harm innocents as both groups are choosing to do, as you're supporting Israel in doing, and as Biden is, at least tentatively, providing some support for.
I'm opposed to it NOT just because it's wrong to harm innocents (the thousands of children and innocent bystanders, perhaps some of the hostages, for instance), but because it's counterproductive to stopping injustice.
When Hamas engages in a terroristic attack, as they did, the world is largely united against them in the vile actions they took. BUT, when Israel responds by bombing refugee centers or medical centers where they KNOW innocents will be harmed, then it muddies the waters. BOTH sides, at that point, are choosing to kill innocents deliberately. Israel loses the high moral ground and Palestinians and others will not be willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. War and killing - including of innocents is MORE, not less, likely to occur. It's counterproductive and, as noted, probably illegal, as it should be.
You and I and good people everywhere are outraged when Hamas killed innocent people. Rightly so. We should seek justice against the guilty.
But when you harm the innocents in your fight against the guilty, Hamas and terrorists win.
"You write as if you suffer from an either/or mindset."
Then you clearly haven't read what I've written. Given that, I see no reason to waste time with anything else in your comment.
It's interesting that this post is actually about a video of a Muslim arguing in favor of beating one's wife as a therapeutic exercise, and that's been pretty much ignored.
To answer some of your questions to me that any rational person who knows me knows the answer to...
When the left wing dude shot up the Christian school, where was your public outrage?
I haven't commented (I don't believe) on ANY public shootings. Not that one and not the many others committed by right wing extremists.
Again, I don't post on my blog about everything, because no one does. I remain finite, but thanks for the vote of confidence!
Where was the blog post of FB post?
See above. I don't comment on everything.
Where was the comment on anyone else's blog condemning him in the same terms you use for the J6 peaceful protesters?
You mean the J6 rioters who harmed dozens of people, including law enforcement officials? The ones who were arrested and found guilty of various crimes? I haven't really commented much on them. I HAVE commented somewhat on rightwing defense of them, because that's a problem, but once again, I remain finite.
As a point of fact, I have never one time in all of reality in the real world populated by rational and real people condemned EVEN ONE peaceful J6 protester.
How about retracting the false claim and apologizing for it, you know, like an adult engaging in a good faith conversation?
Pride and hubris much, or just an excuse for your silence of leftist/Muslim actions?
I don't comment on every action that happens in the real world. Nor do you. It's not prideful to recognize that one is finite, is it? Seems quite the opposite, to me.
As a point of reality, IF anyone ever wants to know my opinion of violent action by ANY violent religious extremists - Muslim, Christian or otherwise - the answer remains the same: It's wrong. Period. That's the advantage of holding a consistent moral position on harming innocents. And, as always, I don't/can't comment on every bad thing that happens. No one does.
That's why I tend to speak about principles and policies: As a matter of principle and policy, I am ALWAYS opposed to harming innocent bystanders.
Join me in ALWAYS opposing those who'd deliberately kill innocent people for any reason?
Answering more questions where the answer has either been provided or should be obvious:
Better than what? Advocating for justice being done for the barbaric attack on Oct 7?
Nope. I ALSO advocate for justice (actual justice, not mindless bloodthirsty vengeance to soothe sick male egos) so, of course, that is not what I'm speaking of.
You truly didn't recognize that?
For understanding that Hamas is responsible for the "innocents" being killed in Gaza (or at least the majority of them).
Indeed, Hamas is IN PART responsible for cowardly hiding behind innocent people. But the deaths were not perpetrated by Hamas terrorists in that case. The deaths and maimings and destruction were caused by Israel who decided to bomb/attack in areas with vast numbers of innocent citizens, resulting in it sounds like thousands of deaths, including thousands of innocent children. YES, Hamas was wrong to hide behind them and YES, Israel was wrong to let terrorists turn THEM (Israel) into monsters, too. Israel and good people should be better than being outsmarted by terrorists.
For understanding that there is a difference between collateral damage aftre making multiple attempts to get noncombatants out of the area, and indiscriminately targeting civilian areas with unguided rockets, and massacring innocent women and children in barbaric and horrific ways?
There IS a difference, and yet both remain wrong. IF the police were chasing two murderers who ran into your church building with a service going on and they dispensed "justice" by bombing the church, knowing that there were innocent men, women and children in there, those police would be wrong.
We have war crime agreements and rules of engagement during war for a reason. Israel has agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention and they've been breaking those rules for years in their treatment of Palestinians and they are, by all reasonable evidence, breaking them now. You can't target a hospital or refugee camp to try to kill one or two bad guys. It's a crime.
Be better enough to recognize that. Hamas committed atrocities. You and I are right to condemn that and stand opposed to it and call for justice against the terrorists who committed the actions. But that doesn't give them a right to commit injustices in return.
Be better. Understand that.
Are you familiar with the war crimes agreements that Israel is violating and why it's a crime?
It's interesting that this post is actually about a video of a Muslim arguing in favor of beating one's wife as a therapeutic exercise, and that's been pretty much ignored.
You recognize, I suppose, that conservative Christians have, for a long time, defended and promoted corporal punishment of varying degrees. And some have called for abused wives to stay with their husbands. And since you're not beginning with condemning those practices of abusing children or staying with abusing husbands, I have to assume that you must support it. Your silence says it all.
Or at least, that's the standard by which you're trying to irrationally measure me. I make no such assumptions about you, EVEN THOUGH you've never put up a post condemning spanking children or pastors telling wives to stay with their abusive spouses.
Although the protestant pastors of these parents would sometimes visit my office and concede a parishioner had gone too far, they were also quick to claim Christian parenting must involve some level of violence. Of course, the pastors wouldn’t call corporal punishment an act of violence. They would call it smacking, swatting or spanking. I’m not sure any of the injured children who came to my attention understood this distinction. The insistence on hitting children in the name of God also has a spiritual toll. Long after bruises fade and wounds heal, the blows may continue to influence the child’s view of God causing some children to struggle, even abandon their faith...
Some Protestant writers, such as Michael and Debi Pearl, have advocated for the switching of children, including infants. In their book, To Train Up a Child, the Pearls contend that “when your baby is tired and sleepy enough to become irritable, don’t reinforce irritability by allowing the cause and effect to continue…. Get tough. Be firm with him. Never allow him to get up…To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down. It will become as easy as putting a rag doll to sleep.”
More writing about Christians advocating "Christian parenting" that includes spanking, switching and other forms of violence.
"...the data suggesting that “born-again” Christians are more likely than Americans in general to view spanking as an acceptable discipline strategy with children"
"For decades, John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (GCC) not only promoted corporal punishment of children, but also encouraged the use of a “whacker”—a 6-to 12-inch leather strap for inflicting pain, sources told The Roys Report (TRR).
The whacker typified a culture of abuse at GCC, former GCC families told TRR. And in one case, the “whacker” and other instruments were used by a well-respected GCC member to brutalize his children for years, the wife of the alleged abuser told TRR."
"Twenty years ago she came to the church leadership at Grace Community Church for help for her abusive marriage. Her husband was abusing her and the kids (and was later discovered to be sexually abusing them). She was told to submit more. She got a restraining order, and she was excommunicated from the church.
When her husband was sent to jail for abuse, the church supported him and continued to badmouth her. "
But yes, it's certainly true that this one Muslim teacher is just as wrong as these Christian defenders of abuse and abusers. But then, you can KNOW that is my position, right? And HOW can you know it's my position?
Because I am always opposed to harm inflicted upon innocent people.
Not exactly, you've just said that it's wrong to kill "innocents" while punishing atrocities.
?? I mean... ??? WTF? Do you ACTUALLY think it's okay to kill innocents (not sure why you're scare quoting "innocents..." - we're talking about men, women, children and babies, hostages, helper organizations who are potentially being killed... ACTUAL innocent people who are not part of Hamas) EVEN IF it's in the process of punishing atrocities?
You can't really think that. You'd scream if your loved ones were caught in the crossfire of armies "in the process of punishing atrocities..." OF COURSE, that's wrong. I can't believe you'd disagree, but you tell me.
"You write as if you suffer from an either/or mindset."
Dan writes in a manner proving he suffers from a "his head is up his ass" mindset. Indeed, it's clear and blatant.
"This is simply not adult-level reasoning or good faith arguments."
Dan's in not honest, intelligent or rational adult-level reasoning and as such, not at all arguments made in "good faith", one of many terms, words or phrases he likes to throw around to project character he doesn't possess. Let's look at what came between those two quotes of his, reflect an intentional corruption of the points we've been making:
"Dan wants us to watch out for innocent Palestians, so he must think that Israel must do nothing."
As we've constantly reminded Dan, there's great difficulty in identifying just who among the pallies can appropriately be labeled "innocent". "Innocent" of what? Not actually firing a weapon at Jews? Are there any pallies to whom Dan can point who have promoted love for the Jews? ...any who have simply promoted not murdering them or have publicly called for the rejection of the goal of destroying them all? Any? Is Dan truly unaware of how their schools and even cartoons promote the destruction of all Jews as a good thing?
With all that in mind, and as Dan cannot provide a legitimate, evidence-based answer to any of those questions, and as it is well known that civilians are strategically placed along side weapons depots and launch sites, and with the well known failure of every attempt by Israel to get any peace agreement from the pallies from the moment they first began to falsely pretend the land belongs to them, with all that and more in mind, there is no response to attacks Israel can perpetrate without the high probability that civilians...few of whom can rightly be labeled "innocent" of complicity in the attacks Israel has suffered since 1948...will be killed. Thus, whatever the hell it is Dan would consider "doing something" that's effective would surely be laughably stupid. Thus, Dan truly expects that Israel do nothing, because only force has any effect at all on their vile enemies.
"Dan believes that innocent Palestians should not be killed deliberately, therefore, he must conflate Hamas' actions and Israel's actions."
The first lie here is the notion that Israelis seek to deliberately kill these alleged "innocent" pallies. Israel puts themselves at great risk in warning the pallies to flee before they respond to episodes of pallie murder of Jews. Warning the alleged "innocents" is the same as warning Hamas and other blood-thirsty Jew haters, and thus they can better prepare.
The second lie Dan's tells is in suggesting he does NOT conflate Hamas actions with Israeli actions. He does all the time and we'll see examples as we move along.
"Dan recognizes international laws about the deliberate targeting of civilians, therefore he must be opposed to justice for Israel"
These "laws" require Israel do nothing in response to attacks upon its people because of the aforementioned tactic of launching murderous attacks from among their own civilians, there's no other way to stop the evil without also killing those who either choose to remain or are forced to remain by the vile despots they elected to rule them.
These "laws" do not account for this tactic, which is not only unique to islamic thugs, but can't be worked around because the thugs won't stop employing it. It still comes down to a basic trade off: either Israel worries about pallie civilians or they worry about their own. Dan would have Israel risk the lives of their own people rather than allow any harm come to the people who hate them and support attacks against them.
"Dan hasn't commented on his blog (during these last two months while he was tending to his dying mother), therefore, he must be secretly defending Hamas."
Only Dan would exploit that situation to defend what is typical of him and has been since he first soiled the blogosphere with his inane commentaries. He's long promoted a moral equivalency between Israel and those who seek their total annihilation.
And as it turns out, a quick look at his FB and other blogs indicates he did have time for posting during the last two months, so...there's that. But this is just another blog when it need to be and this is just another issue. I can't see that I'd go that route, but simply would have left it at "I've been busy". And I wouldn't belabor the point were anyone else have done it. Anyone else. However, I actually hoped my quick search would have found next to no postings given this excuse. Sad.
"Dan doesn't write posts on his blog when some Muslim extremists do bad things, therefore, he's "silent" when "his side" does bad things."
This is about as close to truth was we ever see from Dan. This is another case of Dan minimizing the actions of those he supports (or saying nothing at all about the actions themselves) while inflating the "wrongness"...apparent or actual...of those he opposes. It is more evident here in his moral equivalency with regard to Israel's response.
"Dan wants to protect innocent Palestinians therefore he must be an anti-semite."
This one's just a straight-up lie, as I've never said anything like that. My position has simply been to reject the notion that Israel must put itself at risk in order to guarantee no harm befalls those Dan wishes to regard as "innocent" pallies. That is, however, a decidedly anti-Semitic position to take, given how much harm results from doing things which would gain Dan's approval. More to the point, there are better indications he's anti-Semitic which don't require him putting words in my mouth.
"First of all, violent religious extremists (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) are not "my side." They are specifically NOT my side, as I'm opposed to violent religious or otherwise extremism."
Two problems here:
1. Dan again conflates muslims and Christians (and given the topic and Dan's comments, Jews as well). There's no parallel between muslims versus Christians or Jews regarding the use of violence. If I'm a saintly Christian who preaches peace and love, yet I go to war to prevent the slaughter of truly innocent civilians by muslim jihadists, does that make me a violent extremist? So again, Dan uses terms for effect, but there are no Christians or Jews who, as a vast group as the entirety of the pallies alone, who indulge in the type of violence we've been seeing by Hamas and other islamic terrorists. One might find small pockets of small groups of militants who happen to be either Christian or Jew. But they don't identify as warriors for God against all non-believers.
2. Given Dan's history, extremists and the violent are whomwever Dan says they are. As such, his use of those terms are meaningless aside from his intention of posturing as one who is of peace and cares about the innocent. Yet this guy supports the legitimized murder of innocent people in the womb. His hypocrisy is off the charts.
"Secondly, I tend to speak to principles and philosophies on my blog, not specific local news or specific politicians (although Trump was such an extreme threat to our free Republic, I did speak to his atrocious behavior/policies at least occassionally, and I've addressed Biden and Obama's bad policies, as well. But that's not the thrust of my blog."
I'm unaware of any blogs which do not have at their core a focus on principles and philosophies. His obsession with Trump as "an extreme threat" is never explained or supported with actual facts or evidence, but only on his assertions of his alleged evil. Trump's tenure was marked by the promotion of American principles and philosophies which Dan opposes because of his moral bankruptcy, preferring rumor and myth which titillates him, while ignoring the many proven misbehaviors of Obama and Biden. As has been stated many times, he inflates the negatives of Trump beyond all reason and truth, while minimizing the true harm caused by both Obama and Biden. He's done nothing beyond the most token gesture of admonition against them, while pretending Trump was and is somehow "an extreme threat to our free Republic" and guilty of "atrocious behavior/policies", none of which had any truly significant negative effect on anybody. The thrust of Dan's blog is to present himself as something his principles and philosophies prove anathema to Christian teaching.
"That is, I'm not talking about the news story of Hamas terrorism or Israel's probable war crimes in response."
Here, Dan presumes collateral damage is a war crime because there was no practical way to avoid and still respond logically and necessarily to the crimes of those he pretends are no worse than that unfortunate collateral damage. It's a vile statement to make, as it supposes again a moral equivalency which in no way exists... a parallel of the left's and the pallies' own invention.
"I'm talking about the principles of choosing to cause no deliberate harm to innocents..."
Says the guy who's cool with the unjustified destruction of people in utero. That's the most vile harm intentionally caused. The definition of "deliberate".
"...about the principles of allying with the poor and marginalized and why that's rational and moral and Christian."
Lip service, while he defends abortion yet pretends the deaths of those who were warned repeatedly to flee while justly responding to murderous acts are deliberate acts against the "innocent".
"Finally, I'm opposed to Hamas terrorism, of course, and I'm opposed to Israel's probable war crimes in response..."
There it is again! The unsupported claim that Israel engages in "war crimes" in response to the murder of their people by those who wish to murder them all! This asshat yet claims to be Christian! He mocks Christ by doing so!
"...in part because it's simply wrong to deliberately choose to harm innocents as both groups are choosing to do."
He's now moved on to abject and intentional lying...AGAIN! Israel is not at all "choosing" to "deliberately" harm "innocents". He cannot prove this claim. It's a rank and intentionally stated lie. May God not hold it against the woman who gave birth to this rank scumbag!
"I'm opposed to it NOT just because it's wrong to harm innocents (the thousands of children and innocent bystanders, perhaps some of the hostages, for instance), but because it's counterproductive to stopping injustice."
This is too false to be anything but rank stupidity! But I'm going to jump to the end of it and state unequivocally that the ONLY way to stop injustice is to destroy Hamas and anyone and anything related to them. That will only, unfortunately, stop the injustice perpetrated against Jews and Westerners by that one group of islamic assholes. But it's a start which must be seen through to its end, and what few actual innocent pallies die in the process, may God forgive them for worshiping a false god. The true harm to "innocents" are the consequence of the actions of Jew-hating muslims...not the people and armies of Israel. Dan only pretends to be compassionate as he enables the death and suffering caused by these bastards and criminals in our country.
"When Hamas engages in a terroristic attack, as they did, the world is largely united against them in the vile actions they took. BUT, when Israel responds by bombing refugee centers or medical centers where they KNOW innocents will be harmed, then it muddies the waters."
Not to rational, honest and intelligent people who understand how the islamists work. The only muddying of the waters is done by modern progressive asshats who have no standing to proffer and opinion given their rank stupidity and anti-Semitism.
"BOTH sides, at that point, are choosing to kill innocents deliberately."
Another willful, intentional lie. No one who dares claim a shred of intelligence, honesty or love of Christ would say something to blatantly false. That's our Dan! He boldly lies and people suffer as a result of those like him.
"Israel loses the high moral ground and Palestinians and others will not be willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt."
So Israel needs to worry about the opinions of murderers and lefties who support them. Got it. What an asshole!
"War and killing - including of innocents is MORE, not less, likely to occur."
More stupidity given the history of Israel constantly making concessions for peace and getting murdered for doing so! This goes back to 1948. Dan's a moron of world-class status. He's an example of what's wrong with America.
"You and I and good people everywhere are outraged when Hamas killed innocent people."
What audacious hubris that Dan would dare group himself with Craig and "good people everywhere". Dan is not a good person at all. "Good people everywhere" are quite clear on the need for Israel to do what must be done despite the collateral damage resulting from asshole pallie action. I'll be quite clear here so that the moron is not confused. It is likely the case that islam must to wiped out entirely in order for Israel to know peace. I'm good with that given islam has no intention of allowing Israel to live at all. Anyone who thinks Israel is the problem is a liar or a moron or both. There's no other possibility.
"But when you harm the innocents in your fight against the guilty, Hamas and terrorists win."
No they don't, unless you think winning doesn't include remaining alive. There are no "innocents" among the pallies whose lives are the responsibility of Israel. Not a one. Israel would be more than happy to never again respond to the murder of their people if the pallies would stop trying to murder them. Assuming there are any "innocents" among the pallies, their lives are jeopardized by other pallies...NOT Israel. Dan's a moron.
"Do you not see that one of these things is not like the others?"
Obviously there are superficial differences, but fundamentally in all cases the aggressor is reaping a logical consequence of their actions.
"When the oppressor gets harmed in the act of the righteous seeking justice, that harm is on the oppressor/killer/one causing harm."
Well, this would assume that Hamas is both "righteous" and "seeking justice", and that murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping are legitimate tactics for the "righteous" who are "seeking justice", but sure you go ahead and take that position. Well, it finally happened, Dan finally came out and blamed Israel. Ignoring history, the news, and reality, he really just did it. Dan is now on the side of those seeking genocide.
"BUT, when those seeking justice against the ones causing harm intentionally choose to target and kill innocent people, then THEY have also become the oppressor, the one causing harm to innocents."
This is bizarre, ridiculous, and confusing. Now you seem to indicate that Hamas is the aggressor.
"In just 25 days of war, more than 3,600 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza. They were hit by airstrikes, smashed by rockets, burned by blasts and crushed by buildings."
1. Because their parents didn't take advantage of the opportunity they were given to move out of the zone where the IDF was going to attack Hamas. 2. Because Hamas intentionally and willfully put them in positions where they would be used as human shields. 3. By all means let's ignore the Israeli children who were raped, mutilated, killed, and kidnapped. 4. Let's also ignore the fact that Hamas refuses to release those kidnapped.
"Those children were not the ones causing harm. Those thousands of children were quite literally innocent bystanders of Hamas and Israel fighters willing to cause harm/kill children in their thirst for "justice.""
See above.
"Israel is being played for a fool by the terrorists in Hamas. Israel and people like you (and to a lesser degree, Biden) are being played by the terrorists in Hamas."
What in the hell are you talking about. Hamas engaged in barbaric actions against innocent civilians, kidnapped innocent civilians, hide themselves in places where collateral damage will be high, and that is somehow Israel's fault. What an idiotic hunch. The people who are getting played are folx like you who ignore what the leaders of Hamas have said (that they are intentionally sacrificing women, children, and the elderly) because it generates bad PR for Israel. As someone who's done a fair amount of research and study, is well aware of the history, and who does not support any organization who's stated goal is genocide, I,m pretty confident I'm not being "played". You, on the other hand are doing exactly what Hamas wants you to do when they sacrifice their women, children, and elderly.
"This is the advantage of having a consistent moral rubric that says, "No, I will NOT intentionally cause harm to innocent bystanders in seeking Justice. I will find another way. I will not become a monster to fight monsters.""
Well, that's just great. You're right. Israel should have done nothing. Just allow Hamas to continue to kill, rape, mutilate, and kidnap innocent Israeli's and tourists and accept it. Maybe your "moral rubric" would allow them to ask Hamas nicely if they'd please stop and return the kidnapped. Strangely enough, you've argued that Ukraine is perfectly justified in doing exactly what Israel is doing.
"? I mean... ??? WTF? Do you ACTUALLY think it's okay to kill innocents (not sure why you're scare quoting "innocents...""
I think that it is sometimes regrettably unavoidable that "innocents" will be killed during wartime. In this case, Hamas is literally putting their own "innocents" in positions that guarantee that they will be killed. Hiding behind those human shields of "innocents". FYI, when I use the exact word that you used (in this case "innocents"), I use quotation marks to indicate that I am quoting your exact term. I'm sorry that you are confused by my use of quotation marks to indicate that I am quoting your exact word(s).
" - we're talking about men, women, children and babies, hostages, helper organizations who are potentially being killed... ACTUAL innocent people who are not part of Hamas) EVEN IF it's in the process of punishing atrocities?"
1. The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support Hamas and their stated goal of genocide. 2. The leaders of Hamas admit publicly that they intentionally sacrifice their "women, children, and elderly" to further their cause of jihad and genocide. 3. The "men, women, children, and babies" that were barbarically killed, raped, tortured, mutilated, and kidnapped by Hamas (who've already said they'll do this again and again) might deserve some sympathy as well.
"You can't really think that. You'd scream if your loved ones were caught in the crossfire of armies "in the process of punishing atrocities..." OF COURSE, that's wrong. I can't believe you'd disagree, but you tell me."
Thanks for telling me what I can and can't "really think", where would I be without you to think for me.
an doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between Hamas intentionally targeting women, children, and babies" for rape, torture, mutilation, murder, and kidnapping with the ones Hamas uses for human shields being collateral damage.
"But yes, it's certainly true that this one Muslim teacher is just as wrong as these Christian defenders of abuse and abusers. But then, you can KNOW that is my position, right? And HOW can you know it's my position?"
And Dan finally gets to the actual point of the post, and he decides to attack Christians and blandly mention the Muslim quoted in passing.
"Because I am always opposed to harm inflicted upon innocent people."
This may be true in some sense. Unfortunately, you choose to remain silent (or very quite) when it's convenient for you and those on your side.
"I haven't commented (I don't believe) on ANY public shootings. Not that one and not the many others committed by right wing extremists."
Interesting. I guess you do choose silence when "innocents" are harmed in many cases.
"Again, I don't post on my blog about everything, because no one does. I remain finite, but thanks for the vote of confidence!"
Again with the double standard.
"See above. I don't comment on everything."
I understand. Silence in the face of barbaric atrocities is a great way to demonstrate your "moral philosophy".
"You mean the J6 rioters who harmed dozens of people, including law enforcement officials? The ones who were arrested and found guilty of various crimes? I haven't really commented much on them. I HAVE commented somewhat on rightwing defense of them, because that's a problem, but once again, I remain finite."
Thanks for making my point. You've expended thousands of words of vitriol, hate, disdain, lies, and bullshit against a small group of people who were mostly peacefully protesting, did minimal damage, and (despite the media lies) killed no one. While remaining silent about a barbaric, brutal, spree of killing/raping/mutilating/kidnapping. I completely understand who a few protesters who failed to accomplish anything deserve the mountain of vitriol you've spewed, while terrorists engaging in barbarism can't even provoke a response from you.
"As a point of fact, I have never one time in all of reality in the real world populated by rational and real people condemned EVEN ONE peaceful J6 protester."
If you say so.
"How about retracting the false claim and apologizing for it, you know, like an adult engaging in a good faith conversation?"
If you can't prove your statement is True, then it seems absurd to label my claim "false".
"I don't comment on every action that happens in the real world. Nor do you. It's not prideful to recognize that one is finite, is it? Seems quite the opposite, to me."
Nope, you just comment extensively on actions that you believe fit with your worldview and the narrative you are communicating. Hell, you don't even make corrections when you are proven wrong.
"Join me in ALWAYS opposing those who'd deliberately kill innocent people for any reason?"
What a bizarrely formulated statement, ending with a question mark.
52 comments:
Muslim ideology is evil and of the devil.
It's amazing how people who claim to be christians can defend Islam so vociferously. Behavior that they'd vehemently oppose if it was being engaged in by Jews or Christians, barely merits a passing mention when it's engaged in by Muslims.
I thought of this right after I hit publish.
Those on the left have gone to great lengths to oppose corporal punishment in schools or by parents, yet don't seem to be able to gin up the same outrage for this.
Some, like our friend Bubba, and to some extent you, chafes at referring to these people as animals, or sub-human. It never takes long for them to expose themselves as such. Ye shall know them by their fruits. How big a basket does one need?
"Behavior that they'd vehemently oppose if it was being engaged in by Jews or Christians..."
There is no possible way you can POSSIBLY be so entirely inept at understanding as to think this is a rational cment to make in an adult conversation.
You don't seriously think we who oppose the oppression of women, religious minorities, children and/or LGBTQ folk are suddenly okay with it if it's being done by Muslim extremists, do you?
Don't be obtuse or make intentionally false and slanderous claims.
Of course, we consistently are opposed to ALL harm to innocents, ALL oppression of minority groups, women, children or anyone and it doesn't matter which religious extremists are doing the oppression, causing the harm.
That is the advantage of a consistent moral groundwork.
Retract your ridiculously false claim and apologize.
Be better men, fellas.
Dan
"You don't seriously think we who oppose the oppression of women, religious minorities, children and/or LGBTQ folk are suddenly okay with it if it's being done by Muslim extremists, do you?"
1. No.
2. I think that the problem isn't how you feel about "oppression", but how you respond (or don't) to "oppression".
3. Your insinuation that it's only Muslim "extremists" is amusing given the massive show of public support for Hamas.
4. It's much more the fact that y'all will loudly protest "oppression" by certain groups, while you'll "oppose" it silently and privately for other groups.
5. When you place these recent events in the context of "oppression", you ignore so many facts that are relevant to what's happening.
6. I still haven't seen one place where you've specifically said anything negative about the brutality of Hamas attack on innocent civilians as a stand alone statement.
Art,
In my case, it's because I acknowledge the undeniable reality that members of Hamas and those who live in Gaza are, in fact, humans. They are humans created in the image of YHWH who are not beyond redemption. They/their actions are barbaric, evil, vile, and unconscionable. They are without a doubt sinful. Yet, none of that should deny the reality that they are human, not animals.
"Of course, we consistently are opposed to ALL harm to innocents, ALL oppression of minority groups, women, children or anyone and it doesn't matter which religious extremists are doing the oppression, causing the harm."
Of course, you just stay silent about your distress depending on who perpetrates the "oppression".
"That is the advantage of a consistent moral groundwork."
Yet, strangely enough, you can't define this "moral framework" in a way that it becomes a universal, objective standard.
"Retract your ridiculously false claim and apologize."
There was no false claim made, therefore no false claim to retract. The fact that you haven't written any blog posts or FB post decrying the barbarism, pretty much makes my point. The fact that even now, you can't simply call out Hamas for their unprovoked, barbarous, actions without equivocation.
It doesn't say, "know them by their biological makeup". It says, "ye shall know them by their fruits." No one is beyond redemption if they are so-called. This might be a case where these cretins are not part of the Elect, and thus, not likely to ever bee redeemed.
But that's not the point here. Because their actions are so heinous, so blatantly vile and evil and because they perpetrate them not only without remorse, but because they feel called to do so, I will not regard them as human. There's a point to this. Without fail, any act of grace toward these people has resulted in that grace being abused. They pervert it so as to buy time to re-arm and to better prepare for the next strike. They are consistent in their planning to fulfill their most evil directive. So, I will not count myself among those willing to give them any quarter. They must be hunted down and destroyed with extreme prejudice until all those who remain yet untouched will come to believe the only way they can avoid their own demise is to reject their hatred and desires to murder. That means the unconditional surrender to OUR terms by those who have not yet been destroyed.
Only then can they regain recognition as human beings. It's what "proportional response" looks like.
Dan's lamentations are a joke. There have been no "oppression" of anyone by those Dan constantly holds up as guilty of being oppressors, which comes anywhere near the degree of oppression imposed on non-muslims by muslims. Thus, to whine about "oppression" yet not be screaming constantly about the actions of Hamas and their supporters does not suggest a truly "consistent" "moral framework".
But then, Dan only postures.
First, all humans are created in the image of YHWH bear His image. This defines human life as intrinsically valuable.
The problem is that you certainly have no knowledge of who the "elect" are, so your point seems absurd. Very much like "kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.".
How you choose to "regard" them is immaterial. Your "regard" has no meaning outside of yourself, and carries no weight with anyone else. The issue is how YHWH "regards" people, not you.
In any case, the differentiation is between those who are actively engaging in attacks against Israel. they are placing themselves in the position of risk and deserve whatever happens to them. Although, they are still "human". Where some of us have a problem is with the advocating of indiscriminate killing of anyone and everyone who is currently is Gaza.
One example. There are most certainly small children who will be killed if the IDF takes no precautions and their parents don't evacuate them. Surely these children are not "animals", surely they deserve an opportunity for life, don't they?
Obviously, Hamas has the ability to end this carnage instantly. They can give back the hostages, get rid of their weapons, and surrender.
Despite all of that, they remain "human" beings created and bearing the image of YHWH.
You keep beating that drum and despite its truth, it's totally irrelevant here. I don't interfere with what God's plans are. I leave Him to His own devices on the assumption He knows what He's doing. I can only deal with circumstances as they present themselves and take action on the basis of the best outcomes for the most people. I don't believe I'm under any obligation to allow family and friends (be they personal or foreign allies) to be indiscriminately murdered for the sake of who may or may not be innocent among those doing the murdering.
"The problem is that you certainly have no knowledge of who the "elect" are..."
Not having claimed to have any, no "problem" exists with my speculation about whether or not they might be among the Elect. I stated it as a possible bit of evidence against the notion...not anything definitive. What's more, we know very little about who among the population is "innocent" as regards supporting the actions of Hamas or not. Keep in mind, the West Bank is controlled more by Fatah. Do you think they've abandoned their Jew-hatred? The difference is merely they're more secular in comparison to Hamas. But they're otherwise cut from the same Jew-hating cloth.
So, you have no knowledge there exists ANYONE among the so-called pallies who opposed those who are doing the actual indiscriminate killing...otherwise known as "murder".
The Israelis are incredibly outnumbered and have to guard against attack from all sides. For them to risk their lives against the possibility "innocents" might be killed is almost suicidal. Yet they constantly go above and beyond with their warnings to evacuate where they intend to strike, which, by the way, mitigates their chances of success all by itself. We know that some refuse to leave despite these warnings. It is they who are responsible for the deaths of any true innocents. Not the Israelis. They are not "indiscriminately" killed. They are murdered by their own parents and rulers by refusing to leave when warned against staying.
"One example. There are most certainly small children who will be killed if the IDF takes no precautions and their parents don't evacuate them. Surely these children are not "animals", surely they deserve an opportunity for life, don't they?"
Clearly their own people, the adults with the greatest responsibility to provide that opportunity, don't believe themselves so obligated. The IDF, in the meantime, are risking their lives to provide that opportunity for their own children and that becomes less possible if they're required to back off because the pallies are hiding behind theirs as they murder.
This is not a situation of Israel's making. Hamas will NOT end this carnage, but will continue to perpetuate and exploit it. They have forsaken their humanity by acting like vicious, rabid animals, murdering without remorse but with jubilation. Whose image they bear is not a factor in choosing how to deal with their unique barbarism, for they are not children of God nor do they care to be. So you can nitpick about whether or not they are human. I'm focused on the victims of their animal behavior and don't see any reason to believe it will ever end without their complete destruction.
2. I think that the problem isn't how you feel about "oppression", but how you respond (or don't) to "oppression".
I respond the same: Oppression is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter WHO is doing the oppressing or why, it's wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong. Period. Hiding behind innocent people putting their lives at risk is wrong. Targeting hospitals with innocent people in them because you think the "bad guys" are hiding there is wrong.
That's the advantage of being consistent in one's position. You have no need to ask me if I think causing harm to innocent people is wrong. I consistently say yes.
It's Israel, Hamas, conservatives and terrorists who think there are times we can reasonably attack and knowingly kill innocent people because you make exceptions as to when it's wrong, whereas folk like me always say it is wrong.
That isn't to compare you to Hamas or terrorists. It's noting the reality that you both have times you think it's acceptable to cause harm to innocents. Am I mistaken?
Yet, strangely enough, you can't define this "moral framework" in a way that it becomes a universal, objective standard.
I DO define the moral framework in very simple and easy-to-understand consistent messaging: IT IS WRONG to cause harm to innocent people. Period.
None of us can prove our moral opinions with an objective standard unless one, like me, accepts the premise that it is always wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That's a moot point.
The fact that you haven't written any blog posts or FB post decrying the barbarism, pretty much makes my point. The fact that even now, you can't simply call out Hamas for their unprovoked, barbarous, actions without equivocation
The fact is, as you no doubt know by now, that I've been tending to my dying mother and then making arrangements for her funeral and providing support for my family in the midst of that, in addition to my work and church responsibilities.
The fact is, we've agreed that no one can or does make comments on every possible topic.
The fact is that I HAVE condemned Hamas for their barbarous attacks on innocent people. I haven't done so on my blog for the entirely rational reasons explained above.
This is the advantage, once again, to having a consistent moral position on the harm of innocent people. You don't need to ask consistent people if they are opposed to harming innocent people. And this is the advantage of embracing grace.
It's much more the fact that y'all will loudly protest "oppression" by certain groups, while you'll "oppose" it silently and privately for other groups.
Again, no one comments on ALL possible topics. That would be an inane position to take. I TEND to spend most of my time taking stands about policies in the US, where I have a voice in the policies.
6. I still haven't seen one place where you've specifically said anything negative about the brutality of Hamas attack on innocent civilians as a stand alone statement.
Doesn't matter if you haven't seen it. The attacks by Hamas on innocent people were evil and a grotesque injustice. Period. Because, of course they were. How could one possibly know that I think so? Because I am always opposed to harming innocent people.
Embrace grace, friends.
"You keep beating that drum and despite its truth"
At least you acknowledge the Truth. I see no reason to go any further into your comment. The very notion that the Truth is irrelevant or doesn't apply sees absurd and not worth dignifying with further response.
"I respond the same: Oppression is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter WHO is doing the oppressing or why, it's wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong. Period. Hiding behind innocent people putting their lives at risk is wrong. Targeting hospitals with innocent people in them because you think the "bad guys" are hiding there is wrong."
No, you don't. You are quick to jump to conclusions, and slow to retract those conclusions, when you believe that the "oppressor" is part of certain groups you disagree with. You are slow, or silent, when the "oppressor" is part of a group you support or agree with.
"That's the advantage of being consistent in one's position. You have no need to ask me if I think causing harm to innocent people is wrong. I consistently say yes."
It's also a cop out which allows you to stay silent and hide behind your vague, bland, universal condemnation when these acts are done by those you agree with, support, or are allied with. While loudly and repeatedly attacking those with whom you do not agree, support, or ally with.
"It's Israel, Hamas, conservatives and terrorists who think there are times we can reasonably attack and knowingly kill innocent people because you make exceptions as to when it's wrong, whereas folk like me always say it is wrong."
What an interesting notion. That Israel is not allowed to respond when it is attacked, and that Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent. This makes my point. You refuse to say boldly that Hamas bears responsibility for what's happening because Hamas started the chain of events that led to what is happening in Gaza. Your refuse to specifically call for Hamas to unilaterally stop their attacks, stop using civilians as human shields, and immediately release the kidnapped. You remain silent when Hamas stockpiles supplies with the intent of continuing to attack innocent civilians, instead of distributing those supplies to those in Gaza. You just can't single out Hamas and acknowledge what they have done, are doing, and will do, without equating Israel's response to their attacks as being equal.
"That isn't to compare you to Hamas or terrorists. It's noting the reality that you both have times you think it's acceptable to cause harm to innocents. Am I mistaken?"
No. But you just can't seem to be able to criticize Hamas specifically for believing exactly this.
'I DO define the moral framework in very simple and easy-to-understand consistent messaging: IT IS WRONG to cause harm to innocent people. Period."
Which is not in any way shape or form, universal, objective, or enforceable on those who disagree.
"None of us can prove our moral opinions with an objective standard unless one, like me, accepts the premise that it is always wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That's a moot point."
Irrelevant. Hamas is quite clear that they DO believe that is is acceptable, even imperative, to cause harm to innocent people as well as to subject their own citizens to harm as a way to get good PR and help motivate their followers. You can't say that they are wrong, because you admit that your personal, subjective, moral framework isn't and can't be universal. That it only applies to those who believe "like" you.
"The fact is, as you no doubt know by now, that I've been tending to my dying mother and then making arrangements for her funeral and providing support for my family in the midst of that, in addition to my work and church responsibilities."
The fact is that, your silence on the actions of Hamas and groups like them predates this recent barbarism. Strangely enough, you've managed to find the time for multiple FB posts about all sorts of things since October 7th, yet not one on the topic of the barbarous, unprovoked attack by Hamas.
"The fact is, we've agreed that no one can or does make comments on every possible topic."
Yet you almost always seem to post a rant any time someone or some group you perceive to be "conservative" does anything that involves violence or "oppression", yet virtually never do so when it's someone or some group that you support or is on "your side".
"The fact is that I HAVE condemned Hamas for their barbarous attacks on innocent people. I haven't done so on my blog for the entirely rational reasons explained above."
Of course you have. It's convenient that you've chosen to do so in a manner which is impossible to verify.
"This is the advantage, once again, to having a consistent moral position on the harm of innocent people. You don't need to ask consistent people if they are opposed to harming innocent people. And this is the advantage of embracing grace."
Wow, that's pretty self serving, prideful, and superior.
"Again, no one comments on ALL possible topics. That would be an inane position to take. I TEND to spend most of my time taking stands about policies in the US, where I have a voice in the policies."
My point exactly. You tend to spend you time remaining silent on things that are engaged in by people you support. Of course a quick scroll through your recent blog posts calls this claim into question. Of course you could just admit that your outrage is selective and primarily aimed at those your disagree with politically, ideologically, or theologically and acknowledge that you remain silent when those on your side of those categories engage in certain actions.
"Doesn't matter if you haven't seen it. The attacks by Hamas on innocent people were evil and a grotesque injustice. Period. Because, of course they were. How could one possibly know that I think so? Because I am always opposed to harming innocent people."
Because we just have to trust you when you're silent. But at least you finally do acknowledge the "evil" of Hamas without trying to mitigate it with false equivalencies.
"Embrace grace, friends."
You don't and we're not. So why should we do what you won't do.
I have to note that Dan has also ignored the numerous instances of antisemitism and outright hatred for Jews being engaged in by American leftists, and academic institutions. It's selective outrage.
As near as I can tell, Dan's blog is devoid of what he claims he primarily comments on unless one goes back to May 5, 2023.
"What an interesting notion. That Israel is not allowed to respond when it is attacked, and that Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent..."
This is not a good faith, rational, adult response to my actual position, which again, is consistent and crystal clear.
It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to innocents.
I did not ever say that Israel doesn't have a right to defend themselves. Have I?
What HAVE I said?
It's wrong to deliberately harm innocents. Period.
Israel, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Nicaraguan, US citizens can defend themselves BUT not by deliberately killing innocents.
Surely you don't think that defending one's self requires causing deliberate harm to innocents?
That would be a game school level reasoning. As my dear conservative sainted mother would tell you: two wrongs don't make a right.
Likewise for your false claim that I've said Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent. ONLY insofar as both are acting out the notion that it's sometimes acceptable to kill innocents. In that instance, they are literally morally equivalent.
Dan
I said...
"This is the advantage, once again, to having a consistent moral position on the harm of innocent people. You don't need to ask consistent people if they are opposed to harming innocent people. And this is the advantage of embracing grace."
Which seems like a simply rational observation.
You responded...
"Wow, that's pretty self serving, prideful, and superior."
Do you think noting having a steady, consistent moral philosophy is self serving and prideful?
Dan
"This is not a good faith, rational, adult response to my actual position, which again, is consistent and crystal clear."
If you say so.
"It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to innocents."
In this instance, we know that Hamas has intentionally used "innocents" as human shields. They have intentionally placed their important facilities in places where "innocents' are and have not allowed the "innocents" to leave. Are you really suggesting that Israel should not take the steps to eradicate Hamas, and rescue those innocents who've been kidnapped because Hamas uses "innocents" as human shields? That Hamas should be free to continue it's barbarism then hide behind "innocents" to avoid justice? How is that just? If Israel warns the innocents that they should leave, and takes every precaution to protect them, is that really "intentional"? As per Hamas leaders, Hamas intends to sacrifice women, children, and the elderly to further it's aims, yet you don't criticize that.
"I did not ever say that Israel doesn't have a right to defend themselves. Have I?"
Not exactly. You appear to be saying that Israel can defend itself only if they can do so with zero civilian casualties while civilian casualties are part of Hamas' strategy, wouldn't your prescription pretty much stop Israel from defending itself?
"What HAVE I said?"
Same old shit.
"Israel, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Nicaraguan, US citizens can defend themselves BUT not by deliberately killing innocents."
With the exception of your one comment this morning, when have you publicly and specifically excoriated Hamas for intentionally targeting "innocents" both Israeli, tourists to Israel, and their own people?
"Surely you don't think that defending one's self requires causing deliberate harm to innocents?"
No, although sometimes harm to "innocents" is unavoidable for numerous reasons. Yet nations must defend themselves, right?
"That would be a game school level reasoning. As my dear conservative sainted mother would tell you: two wrongs don't make a right."
Yet, one vile, evil, barbaric, wrong unpunished doesn't make a right either.
"Likewise for your false claim that I've said Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent. ONLY insofar as both are acting out the notion that it's sometimes acceptable to kill innocents. In that instance, they are literally morally equivalent."
The fact that you choose not to see the difference between the intentional targeting of "innocents", and well as the using of "innocents" for human shields on Hamas part and the Israeli attempts to avoid harming "innocents" while still trying to defeat Hamas, is truly childish.
FYI, if noncombatants support the aims and methods of Hamas, cheer and celebrate when Hamas kills innocent Israelis, and willingly allow their children to join the terrorist wing of Hamas, are they really "innocents"?
"Do you think noting having a steady, consistent moral philosophy is self serving and prideful?"
No, I think having a subjective, moral philosophy anchored completely in your personal, subjective, fallible, Reason, and acting as if that subjective moral philosophy should be adhered to by others is. I certainly think bragging about it is.
"Of course you could just admit that your outrage is selective and primarily aimed at those your disagree with politically, ideologically, or theologically and acknowledge that you remain silent when those on your side of those categories engage in certain actions."
It has nothing to do with not speaking out with those who agree with me politically, ideologically or theologically.
Understand?
If an Amish guy, a Democrat or a liberal were to advocate targeting and killing innocent people, I'd condemn them. Period.
It's not about partisanship, it's about behavior.
Again, you can reason better than this, Craig. Try to argue in good faith. Be better.
Also, it IS true that none of us spend too much time talking about the politics of other countries. Nicaragua is a mess right now. Guatemala may or may not have signs of hope for a better, more free nation. China is persecuting a religious minority. None of us comment on every bad thing.
I tend to comment on ideals and policies at play in our nation.
We need improvements in our border policies that do a better job of welcoming at least refugees and struggling immigrants. We need better policies around employment for folks with disabilities. We need more affordable housing. We need to get rid of the most corrupt of politicians, Democrat, GOP or otherwise.
When Democrats are as corrupt as Trump (or anything like that), I will condemn the Democrats. Hamas attack was diabolical and evil. Israel's response has been problematic in the extreme. Israel will not defeat Hamas by engaging in similar tactics.
I disagree with wrong behavior, regardless of the group committing the actions.
Like Jesus taught us, I am allied NOT based on religion or ideologies. I strive to be allied with the poor and marginalized, as Jesus taught.
Dan
"Dan's blog is devoid of what he claims he primarily comments on unless one goes back to May 5, 2023."
Indeed, look back at my blog posts back to (and before) May 5. It's not about allying based on party politics. It's about allying consistently with the poor and marginalized. I would hope fellow Christians could respect that.
Dan
Dan,
I wanted to clarify something. When I said that you would not allow Israel to respond to these barbaric attacks, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
My point is that you are placing arbitrary restrictions and limits on Israels ability to respond. While we know that Israel is already trying to limit casualties to non combatants, we also know that Hamas is intentionally putting noncombatants in positions where they will be harmed. This is intended to use Israels regard for innocent life against Israel, and to limit Israel's response and protect the Hamas terrorists.
You seem to be suggesting that Israel can only respond when they are 100% sure that noncombatants will not be harmed at all. With Hamas, this standard is impossible to meet, which means that your standard renders Israel functionally unable to respond, or limits their response while protecting those who committed barbaric atrocities against those who are truly innocent.
I apologize for any confusion.
It's interesting that your moral philosophy of no intentional harm, in this case actually facilitates those who did intentionally harm "innocents" in particularly barbaric ways in avoiding being held to account for their barbaric actions. It also places additional "innocents" at risk of harm as those who committed the Oct 7 barbarities absolutely will continue to harm innocents, and are actually doing so with additional unguided rockets being launched at civilian areas even as the IDF hunts them down. Your insistence further makes it harder to rescue that hostages, and exposes members of the IDF to greater risk of harm themselves.
If you were consistent, you'd be calling for Hamas to immediately stop their attacks on "innocents", release all hostages, and turn themselves if to be held to account for their actions. You don't seem to understand that Hamas has the ability to stop the harm to the "innocents" in Gaza any time they want. But they choose not to. You choose not to notice this seeming flaw in your subjective moral philosophy.
Maybe it's the Islamic notion of Jihad that's the problem. They don't see non Muslims as "innocents" and are able to engage in all sorts of barbaric behavior under the cover of Jihad without subjecting themselves to your subjective moral philosophy.
"My point is that you are placing arbitrary restrictions and limits on Israels ability to respond."
Not arbitrary at all. We have international war crime laws that limit where and how a nation can attack.
Hamas clearly broke these laws, standards. I believe that Israel has, as well... at least according to some experts.
I find it strange that anyone who rightly objects to Hamas deliberately attacking innocent people would object to criticism of Israel for doing the same.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right AND two wrongs don't make the second wrong "just."
Dan
Dan
"Not arbitrary at all. We have international war crime laws that limit where and how a nation can attack."
Oh, now you're appealing to "international war crime laws", instead of your personal subjective moral code. Please cite the specific war crime laws that Israelis have violated? Is Hamas bound by these "international war crimes laws"?
"Hamas clearly broke these laws, standards. I believe that Israel has, as well... at least according to some experts."
Which is it? Do you simply "believe" this to be True, given your encyclopedic knowledge of "international war crimes laws"? Or do you expect me to believe your unnamed, anonymous "experts"?
"I find it strange that anyone who rightly objects to Hamas deliberately attacking innocent people would object to criticism of Israel for doing the same."
You have yet to demonstrate that Israel is "doing the same". Clearly Israel is taking multiple precautions and making all sorts of efforts to avoid noncombatant casualties. But, let's ignore the fact that Hamas wants these noncombatant casualties. It's literally their strategy.
"Again, two wrongs don't make a right AND two wrongs don't make the second wrong "just.""
Because punishing those responsible for barbaric attacks on "innocents" isn't "just".
"Because punishing those responsible for barbaric attacks on "innocents" isn't "just"."
Craig, stop it. Nowhere in the world have I said it's wrong to punish those who commit atrocities. No where, and you know it.
This is not arguing in good faith.
I'm quite specifically condemning the killing of innocents. THAT is the part that is "the wrong."
Be better than this, Craig.
Dan
"Indeed, look back at my blog posts back to (and before) May 5. It's not about allying based on party politics. It's about allying consistently with the poor and marginalized. I would hope fellow Christians could respect that."
Which doesn't invalidate my point. That you've been silent on these issues for quite some time, and that you've never approached stuff by "your side" with the same anger and vehemence that you do for the other side.
"Craig, stop it. Nowhere in the world have I said it's wrong to punish those who commit atrocities. No where, and you know it."
Not exactly, you've just said that it's wrong to kill "innocents" while punishing atrocities.
"This is not arguing in good faith."
If you say so.
"I'm quite specifically condemning the killing of innocents. THAT is the part that is "the wrong.""
Interesting. You've previously been very specific that you were condemning the "intentional" killing of innocents", but now you've changed your standard and are condemning any "killing of innocents". Which, of course, puts even more restrictions on Israel in it's hunt for the barbarians who brutally slaughtered, innocent women and children.
"Be better than this, Craig."
Better than what? Advocating for justice being done for the barbaric attack on Oct 7? For understanding that Hamas is responsible for the "innocents" being killed in Gaza (or at least the majority of them). For understanding that there is a difference between collateral damage aftre making multiple attempts to get noncombatants out of the area, and indiscriminately targeting civilian areas with unguided rockets, and massacring innocent women and children in barbaric and horrific ways?
"It has nothing to do with not speaking out with those who agree with me politically, ideologically or theologically. Understand?"
Sure. It's just a coincidence that you've never attacked the behavior of a leftist government official, government, or anyone on your side with the vehemence you save for those your perceive are "right wing". It's just a coincidence that you've jumped to the conclusion that certain "mass shooters" were automatically "right wing extremists", then remained silent when we find out that they are actually leftists. It's just a coincidence that you are much more vehement in your criticism of "christian" extremists, than Muslims. It's all just a coincidence.
"If an Amish guy, a Democrat or a liberal were to advocate targeting and killing innocent people, I'd condemn them. Period."
Yet you never do. Of course, that's because none of those people would ever do those things.
"It's not about partisanship, it's about behavior."
Really. When the left wing dude shot up the Christian school, where was your public outrage? Where was the blog post of FB post? Where was the comment on anyone else's blog condemning him in the same terms you use for the J6 peaceful protesters?
"Also, it IS true that none of us spend too much time talking about the politics of other countries. Nicaragua is a mess right now. Guatemala may or may not have signs of hope for a better, more free nation. China is persecuting a religious minority. None of us comment on every bad thing."
Whatever. I guess pointing out that those are all leftist oppressive regimes has nothing to do with your silence. Hell, conservatives have been talking about political persecution and slave labor in China for years. Again, conservatives have been talking about the socialist disaster in Nicaragua for years.
But this is irrelevant. What's relevant right now is the left wing antisemitism, and support for Hamas and the Biden administration spending like a drunken sailor to pay for other people's wars by piling crippling debt on our grandchildren.
"I tend to comment on ideals and policies at play in our nation."
Pride and hubris much, or just an excuse for your silence of leftist/Muslim actions?
"We need improvements in our border policies that do a better job of welcoming at least refugees and struggling immigrants. We need better policies around employment for folks with disabilities. We need more affordable housing. We need to get rid of the most corrupt of politicians, Democrat, GOP or otherwise."
Which is irrelevant an doff topic. But by all means, show me a link to the last post you wrote excoriating a DFL politician accused of corruption.
"When Democrats are as corrupt as Trump (or anything like that), I will condemn the Democrats. Hamas attack was diabolical and evil. Israel's response has been problematic in the extreme. Israel will not defeat Hamas by engaging in similar tactics."
You say you will, but you don't. You just remain silent.
"I disagree with wrong behavior, regardless of the group committing the actions."
Because repeating bullshit makes it less bullshit.
"Like Jesus taught us, I am allied NOT based on religion or ideologies. I strive to be allied with the poor and marginalized, as Jesus taught."
Whatever you say. Irrelevant and off topic.
I take it back, Craig. After reading your exchange with Dan, it's clear those like Dan are the true animals.
More to the point, Dan is not what he claims to be, because what he claims to be doesn't align with his stupidity as expressed just in this thread alone. Let's review:
"Oppression is always wrong."
Does this include the imprisonment...denial of personal freedom...and possibly forced labor as is routine in our prison system? Does this include the forcing of a perverse immorality to be accepted as moral and normal upon those who actually abide the Will of God?
This is the same as "violence is always wrong" when law enforcement routine requires violent actions must be employed to subdue criminals and protest the public. Violence was used during our Civil War in order to free the enslaved and restore the Union.
Dan throws around words and terms in this way to absolve him from being unequivocal in his condemning of those who are most worthy of condemnation, while abusing them to condemn those who are doing no wrong. It's his way. His modus operandi. It's how he lies about those with whom he disagrees while defending the vile he favors.
Next, given Dan posted here on the 28th of Oct and then posted about his mother's passing on the 29th, I don't see how her situation could have prevented an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas devoid of any moral relativity with regard to any other people. The actions of Hamas are wholly and completely unlike anything Israel has ever been proven to have done, and Israel's actions have always been in response to the evil of Hamas. If there was any confusion about the cut of Dan's jib, this exploitative defense should clear it up nicely.
Moving on, overall, Dan's position is always one requiring his head be rammed as high up his backside as he can possibly so ram it. There it remains while all the world moves in manner he cannot clearly see because he refuses to see it clearly. While so contorted, he insists he's a living expression of Christian teaching, and truth suffers as a result. Indeed, he ignores it outright in order to posture as something he's not close to being.
Dan whines about harming people. Dan's view of the world...his twisted understanding of the God about Whom he only pretends to care...causes great harm to all manner of people, both physically and spiritually.
Finally, Dan's made a variety of unsupported claims in this thread. Note how none of his comments have been deleted. If his personal situation denies him the ability to do what he constantly demands of others, it's best he say nothing. We already know he provides no evidence to counter claims made by us. But by his standards and demands, he should never make a single claim without supporting evidence.
You write as if you suffer from an either/or mindset.
Dan wants us to watch out for innocent Palestians, so he must think that Israel must do nothing.
Dan believes that innocent Palestians should not be killed deliberately, therefore, he must conflate Hamas' actions and Israel's actions.
Dan recognizes international laws about the deliberate targeting of civilians, therefore he must be opposed to justice for Israel.
Dan hasn't commented on his blog (during these last two months while he was tending to his dying mother), therefore, he must be secretly defending Hamas.
Dan doesn't write posts on his blog when some Muslim extremists do bad things, therefore, he's "silent" when "his side" does bad things.
Or, as Marshal puts it,
Dan wants to protect innocent Palestinians therefore he must be an anti-semite.
This is simply not adult-level reasoning or good faith arguments.
First of all, violent religious extremists (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) are not "my side." They are specifically NOT my side, as I'm opposed to violent religious or otherwise extremism.
Secondly, I tend to speak to principles and philosophies on my blog, not specific local news or specific politicians (although Trump was such an extreme threat to our free Republic, I did speak to his atrocious behavior/policies at least occassionally, and I've addressed Biden and Obama's bad policies, as well. But that's not the thrust of my blog.
That is, I'm not talking about the news story of Hamas terrorism or Israel's probable war crimes in response. I'm talking about the principles of choosing to cause no deliberate harm to innocents, about the principles of allying with the poor and marginalized and why that's rational and moral and Christian.
Finally, I'm opposed to Hamas terrorism, of course, and I'm opposed to Israel's probable war crimes in response, of course, in part because it's simply wrong to deliberately choose to harm innocents as both groups are choosing to do, as you're supporting Israel in doing, and as Biden is, at least tentatively, providing some support for.
I'm opposed to it NOT just because it's wrong to harm innocents (the thousands of children and innocent bystanders, perhaps some of the hostages, for instance), but because it's counterproductive to stopping injustice.
When Hamas engages in a terroristic attack, as they did, the world is largely united against them in the vile actions they took. BUT, when Israel responds by bombing refugee centers or medical centers where they KNOW innocents will be harmed, then it muddies the waters. BOTH sides, at that point, are choosing to kill innocents deliberately. Israel loses the high moral ground and Palestinians and others will not be willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. War and killing - including of innocents is MORE, not less, likely to occur. It's counterproductive and, as noted, probably illegal, as it should be.
You and I and good people everywhere are outraged when Hamas killed innocent people. Rightly so. We should seek justice against the guilty.
But when you harm the innocents in your fight against the guilty, Hamas and terrorists win.
Dan
"You write as if you suffer from an either/or mindset."
Then you clearly haven't read what I've written. Given that, I see no reason to waste time with anything else in your comment.
It's interesting that this post is actually about a video of a Muslim arguing in favor of beating one's wife as a therapeutic exercise, and that's been pretty much ignored.
To answer some of your questions to me that any rational person who knows me knows the answer to...
When the left wing dude shot up the Christian school, where was your public outrage?
I haven't commented (I don't believe) on ANY public shootings. Not that one and not the many others committed by right wing extremists.
Again, I don't post on my blog about everything, because no one does. I remain finite, but thanks for the vote of confidence!
Where was the blog post of FB post?
See above. I don't comment on everything.
Where was the comment on anyone else's blog condemning him in the same terms you use for the J6 peaceful protesters?
You mean the J6 rioters who harmed dozens of people, including law enforcement officials? The ones who were arrested and found guilty of various crimes? I haven't really commented much on them. I HAVE commented somewhat on rightwing defense of them, because that's a problem, but once again, I remain finite.
As a point of fact, I have never one time in all of reality in the real world populated by rational and real people condemned EVEN ONE peaceful J6 protester.
How about retracting the false claim and apologizing for it, you know, like an adult engaging in a good faith conversation?
Pride and hubris much, or just an excuse for your silence of leftist/Muslim actions?
I don't comment on every action that happens in the real world. Nor do you. It's not prideful to recognize that one is finite, is it? Seems quite the opposite, to me.
As a point of reality, IF anyone ever wants to know my opinion of violent action by ANY violent religious extremists - Muslim, Christian or otherwise - the answer remains the same: It's wrong. Period. That's the advantage of holding a consistent moral position on harming innocents. And, as always, I don't/can't comment on every bad thing that happens. No one does.
That's why I tend to speak about principles and policies: As a matter of principle and policy, I am ALWAYS opposed to harming innocent bystanders.
Join me in ALWAYS opposing those who'd deliberately kill innocent people for any reason?
Answering more questions where the answer has either been provided or should be obvious:
Better than what? Advocating for justice being done for the barbaric attack on Oct 7?
Nope. I ALSO advocate for justice (actual justice, not mindless bloodthirsty vengeance to soothe sick male egos) so, of course, that is not what I'm speaking of.
You truly didn't recognize that?
For understanding that Hamas is responsible for the "innocents" being killed in Gaza (or at least the majority of them).
Indeed, Hamas is IN PART responsible for cowardly hiding behind innocent people. But the deaths were not perpetrated by Hamas terrorists in that case. The deaths and maimings and destruction were caused by Israel who decided to bomb/attack in areas with vast numbers of innocent citizens, resulting in it sounds like thousands of deaths, including thousands of innocent children. YES, Hamas was wrong to hide behind them and YES, Israel was wrong to let terrorists turn THEM (Israel) into monsters, too. Israel and good people should be better than being outsmarted by terrorists.
For understanding that there is a difference between collateral damage aftre making multiple attempts to get noncombatants out of the area, and indiscriminately targeting civilian areas with unguided rockets, and massacring innocent women and children in barbaric and horrific ways?
There IS a difference, and yet both remain wrong. IF the police were chasing two murderers who ran into your church building with a service going on and they dispensed "justice" by bombing the church, knowing that there were innocent men, women and children in there, those police would be wrong.
We have war crime agreements and rules of engagement during war for a reason. Israel has agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention and they've been breaking those rules for years in their treatment of Palestinians and they are, by all reasonable evidence, breaking them now. You can't target a hospital or refugee camp to try to kill one or two bad guys. It's a crime.
Be better enough to recognize that. Hamas committed atrocities. You and I are right to condemn that and stand opposed to it and call for justice against the terrorists who committed the actions. But that doesn't give them a right to commit injustices in return.
Be better. Understand that.
Are you familiar with the war crimes agreements that Israel is violating and why it's a crime?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/14/is-israel-violating-the-laws-of-war-meant-to-protect-children
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
It's interesting that this post is actually about a video of a Muslim arguing in favor of beating one's wife as a therapeutic exercise, and that's been pretty much ignored.
You recognize, I suppose, that conservative Christians have, for a long time, defended and promoted corporal punishment of varying degrees. And some have called for abused wives to stay with their husbands. And since you're not beginning with condemning those practices of abusing children or staying with abusing husbands, I have to assume that you must support it. Your silence says it all.
Or at least, that's the standard by which you're trying to irrationally measure me. I make no such assumptions about you, EVEN THOUGH you've never put up a post condemning spanking children or pastors telling wives to stay with their abusive spouses.
Although the protestant pastors of these parents would sometimes visit my office and concede a parishioner had gone too far, they were also quick to claim Christian parenting must involve some level of violence. Of course, the pastors wouldn’t call corporal punishment an act of violence. They would call it smacking, swatting or spanking. I’m not sure any of the injured children who came to my attention understood this distinction. The insistence on hitting children in the name of God also has a spiritual toll. Long after bruises fade and wounds heal, the blows may continue to influence the child’s view of God causing some children to struggle, even abandon their faith...
Some Protestant writers, such as Michael and Debi Pearl, have advocated for the switching of children, including infants. In their book, To Train Up a Child, the Pearls contend that “when your baby is tired and sleepy enough to become irritable, don’t reinforce irritability by allowing the cause and effect to continue…. Get tough. Be firm with him. Never allow him to get up…To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down. It will become as easy as putting a rag doll to sleep.”
https://christianethicstoday.com/wp/this-little-light-of-mine-a-plea-for-christians-to-stop-hitting-children/
More writing about Christians advocating "Christian parenting" that includes spanking, switching and other forms of violence.
"...the data suggesting that “born-again” Christians are more likely than Americans in general to view spanking as an acceptable discipline strategy with children"
https://church4everychild.org/2014/09/18/adrian-peterson-christians-and-corporal-punishment/
"For decades, John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (GCC) not only promoted corporal punishment of children, but also encouraged the use of a “whacker”—a 6-to 12-inch leather strap for inflicting pain, sources told The Roys Report (TRR).
The whacker typified a culture of abuse at GCC, former GCC families told TRR. And in one case, the “whacker” and other instruments were used by a well-respected GCC member to brutalize his children for years, the wife of the alleged abuser told TRR."
https://julieroys.com/former-members-of-john-macarthurs-church-tell-of-whacker-culture-of-abuse/
"Twenty years ago she came to the church leadership at Grace Community Church for help for her abusive marriage. Her husband was abusing her and the kids (and was later discovered to be sexually abusing them). She was told to submit more. She got a restraining order, and she was excommunicated from the church.
When her husband was sent to jail for abuse, the church supported him and continued to badmouth her. "
https://baremarriage.com/2023/02/john-macarthur-sending-abused-women-back-to-husbands/
But yes, it's certainly true that this one Muslim teacher is just as wrong as these Christian defenders of abuse and abusers. But then, you can KNOW that is my position, right? And HOW can you know it's my position?
Because I am always opposed to harm inflicted upon innocent people.
Craig...
Not exactly, you've just said that it's wrong to kill "innocents" while punishing atrocities.
?? I mean... ??? WTF? Do you ACTUALLY think it's okay to kill innocents (not sure why you're scare quoting "innocents..." - we're talking about men, women, children and babies, hostages, helper organizations who are potentially being killed... ACTUAL innocent people who are not part of Hamas) EVEN IF it's in the process of punishing atrocities?
You can't really think that. You'd scream if your loved ones were caught in the crossfire of armies "in the process of punishing atrocities..." OF COURSE, that's wrong. I can't believe you'd disagree, but you tell me.
"You write as if you suffer from an either/or mindset."
Dan writes in a manner proving he suffers from a "his head is up his ass" mindset. Indeed, it's clear and blatant.
"This is simply not adult-level reasoning or good faith arguments."
Dan's in not honest, intelligent or rational adult-level reasoning and as such, not at all arguments made in "good faith", one of many terms, words or phrases he likes to throw around to project character he doesn't possess. Let's look at what came between those two quotes of his, reflect an intentional corruption of the points we've been making:
"Dan wants us to watch out for innocent Palestians, so he must think that Israel must do nothing."
As we've constantly reminded Dan, there's great difficulty in identifying just who among the pallies can appropriately be labeled "innocent". "Innocent" of what? Not actually firing a weapon at Jews? Are there any pallies to whom Dan can point who have promoted love for the Jews? ...any who have simply promoted not murdering them or have publicly called for the rejection of the goal of destroying them all? Any? Is Dan truly unaware of how their schools and even cartoons promote the destruction of all Jews as a good thing?
With all that in mind, and as Dan cannot provide a legitimate, evidence-based answer to any of those questions, and as it is well known that civilians are strategically placed along side weapons depots and launch sites, and with the well known failure of every attempt by Israel to get any peace agreement from the pallies from the moment they first began to falsely pretend the land belongs to them, with all that and more in mind, there is no response to attacks Israel can perpetrate without the high probability that civilians...few of whom can rightly be labeled "innocent" of complicity in the attacks Israel has suffered since 1948...will be killed. Thus, whatever the hell it is Dan would consider "doing something" that's effective would surely be laughably stupid. Thus, Dan truly expects that Israel do nothing, because only force has any effect at all on their vile enemies.
"Dan believes that innocent Palestians should not be killed deliberately, therefore, he must conflate Hamas' actions and Israel's actions."
The first lie here is the notion that Israelis seek to deliberately kill these alleged "innocent" pallies. Israel puts themselves at great risk in warning the pallies to flee before they respond to episodes of pallie murder of Jews. Warning the alleged "innocents" is the same as warning Hamas and other blood-thirsty Jew haters, and thus they can better prepare.
The second lie Dan's tells is in suggesting he does NOT conflate Hamas actions with Israeli actions. He does all the time and we'll see examples as we move along.
"Dan recognizes international laws about the deliberate targeting of civilians, therefore he must be opposed to justice for Israel"
These "laws" require Israel do nothing in response to attacks upon its people because of the aforementioned tactic of launching murderous attacks from among their own civilians, there's no other way to stop the evil without also killing those who either choose to remain or are forced to remain by the vile despots they elected to rule them.
These "laws" do not account for this tactic, which is not only unique to islamic thugs, but can't be worked around because the thugs won't stop employing it. It still comes down to a basic trade off: either Israel worries about pallie civilians or they worry about their own. Dan would have Israel risk the lives of their own people rather than allow any harm come to the people who hate them and support attacks against them.
"Dan hasn't commented on his blog (during these last two months while he was tending to his dying mother), therefore, he must be secretly defending Hamas."
Only Dan would exploit that situation to defend what is typical of him and has been since he first soiled the blogosphere with his inane commentaries. He's long promoted a moral equivalency between Israel and those who seek their total annihilation.
And as it turns out, a quick look at his FB and other blogs indicates he did have time for posting during the last two months, so...there's that. But this is just another blog when it need to be and this is just another issue. I can't see that I'd go that route, but simply would have left it at "I've been busy". And I wouldn't belabor the point were anyone else have done it. Anyone else. However, I actually hoped my quick search would have found next to no postings given this excuse. Sad.
"Dan doesn't write posts on his blog when some Muslim extremists do bad things, therefore, he's "silent" when "his side" does bad things."
This is about as close to truth was we ever see from Dan. This is another case of Dan minimizing the actions of those he supports (or saying nothing at all about the actions themselves) while inflating the "wrongness"...apparent or actual...of those he opposes. It is more evident here in his moral equivalency with regard to Israel's response.
"Dan wants to protect innocent Palestinians therefore he must be an anti-semite."
This one's just a straight-up lie, as I've never said anything like that. My position has simply been to reject the notion that Israel must put itself at risk in order to guarantee no harm befalls those Dan wishes to regard as "innocent" pallies. That is, however, a decidedly anti-Semitic position to take, given how much harm results from doing things which would gain Dan's approval. More to the point, there are better indications he's anti-Semitic which don't require him putting words in my mouth.
"First of all, violent religious extremists (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) are not "my side." They are specifically NOT my side, as I'm opposed to violent religious or otherwise extremism."
Two problems here:
1. Dan again conflates muslims and Christians (and given the topic and Dan's comments, Jews as well). There's no parallel between muslims versus Christians or Jews regarding the use of violence. If I'm a saintly Christian who preaches peace and love, yet I go to war to prevent the slaughter of truly innocent civilians by muslim jihadists, does that make me a violent extremist? So again, Dan uses terms for effect, but there are no Christians or Jews who, as a vast group as the entirety of the pallies alone, who indulge in the type of violence we've been seeing by Hamas and other islamic terrorists. One might find small pockets of small groups of militants who happen to be either Christian or Jew. But they don't identify as warriors for God against all non-believers.
2. Given Dan's history, extremists and the violent are whomwever Dan says they are. As such, his use of those terms are meaningless aside from his intention of posturing as one who is of peace and cares about the innocent. Yet this guy supports the legitimized murder of innocent people in the womb. His hypocrisy is off the charts.
"Secondly, I tend to speak to principles and philosophies on my blog, not specific local news or specific politicians (although Trump was such an extreme threat to our free Republic, I did speak to his atrocious behavior/policies at least occassionally, and I've addressed Biden and Obama's bad policies, as well. But that's not the thrust of my blog."
I'm unaware of any blogs which do not have at their core a focus on principles and philosophies. His obsession with Trump as "an extreme threat" is never explained or supported with actual facts or evidence, but only on his assertions of his alleged evil. Trump's tenure was marked by the promotion of American principles and philosophies which Dan opposes because of his moral bankruptcy, preferring rumor and myth which titillates him, while ignoring the many proven misbehaviors of Obama and Biden. As has been stated many times, he inflates the negatives of Trump beyond all reason and truth, while minimizing the true harm caused by both Obama and Biden. He's done nothing beyond the most token gesture of admonition against them, while pretending Trump was and is somehow "an extreme threat to our free Republic" and guilty of "atrocious behavior/policies", none of which had any truly significant negative effect on anybody. The thrust of Dan's blog is to present himself as something his principles and philosophies prove anathema to Christian teaching.
"That is, I'm not talking about the news story of Hamas terrorism or Israel's probable war crimes in response."
Here, Dan presumes collateral damage is a war crime because there was no practical way to avoid and still respond logically and necessarily to the crimes of those he pretends are no worse than that unfortunate collateral damage. It's a vile statement to make, as it supposes again a moral equivalency which in no way exists... a parallel of the left's and the pallies' own invention.
"I'm talking about the principles of choosing to cause no deliberate harm to innocents..."
Says the guy who's cool with the unjustified destruction of people in utero. That's the most vile harm intentionally caused. The definition of "deliberate".
"...about the principles of allying with the poor and marginalized and why that's rational and moral and Christian."
Lip service, while he defends abortion yet pretends the deaths of those who were warned repeatedly to flee while justly responding to murderous acts are deliberate acts against the "innocent".
"Finally, I'm opposed to Hamas terrorism, of course, and I'm opposed to Israel's probable war crimes in response..."
There it is again! The unsupported claim that Israel engages in "war crimes" in response to the murder of their people by those who wish to murder them all! This asshat yet claims to be Christian! He mocks Christ by doing so!
"...in part because it's simply wrong to deliberately choose to harm innocents as both groups are choosing to do."
He's now moved on to abject and intentional lying...AGAIN! Israel is not at all "choosing" to "deliberately" harm "innocents". He cannot prove this claim. It's a rank and intentionally stated lie. May God not hold it against the woman who gave birth to this rank scumbag!
"I'm opposed to it NOT just because it's wrong to harm innocents (the thousands of children and innocent bystanders, perhaps some of the hostages, for instance), but because it's counterproductive to stopping injustice."
This is too false to be anything but rank stupidity! But I'm going to jump to the end of it and state unequivocally that the ONLY way to stop injustice is to destroy Hamas and anyone and anything related to them. That will only, unfortunately, stop the injustice perpetrated against Jews and Westerners by that one group of islamic assholes. But it's a start which must be seen through to its end, and what few actual innocent pallies die in the process, may God forgive them for worshiping a false god. The true harm to "innocents" are the consequence of the actions of Jew-hating muslims...not the people and armies of Israel. Dan only pretends to be compassionate as he enables the death and suffering caused by these bastards and criminals in our country.
"When Hamas engages in a terroristic attack, as they did, the world is largely united against them in the vile actions they took. BUT, when Israel responds by bombing refugee centers or medical centers where they KNOW innocents will be harmed, then it muddies the waters."
Not to rational, honest and intelligent people who understand how the islamists work. The only muddying of the waters is done by modern progressive asshats who have no standing to proffer and opinion given their rank stupidity and anti-Semitism.
"BOTH sides, at that point, are choosing to kill innocents deliberately."
Another willful, intentional lie. No one who dares claim a shred of intelligence, honesty or love of Christ would say something to blatantly false. That's our Dan! He boldly lies and people suffer as a result of those like him.
"Israel loses the high moral ground and Palestinians and others will not be willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt."
So Israel needs to worry about the opinions of murderers and lefties who support them. Got it. What an asshole!
"War and killing - including of innocents is MORE, not less, likely to occur."
More stupidity given the history of Israel constantly making concessions for peace and getting murdered for doing so! This goes back to 1948. Dan's a moron of world-class status. He's an example of what's wrong with America.
"You and I and good people everywhere are outraged when Hamas killed innocent people."
What audacious hubris that Dan would dare group himself with Craig and "good people everywhere". Dan is not a good person at all. "Good people everywhere" are quite clear on the need for Israel to do what must be done despite the collateral damage resulting from asshole pallie action. I'll be quite clear here so that the moron is not confused. It is likely the case that islam must to wiped out entirely in order for Israel to know peace. I'm good with that given islam has no intention of allowing Israel to live at all. Anyone who thinks Israel is the problem is a liar or a moron or both. There's no other possibility.
"But when you harm the innocents in your fight against the guilty, Hamas and terrorists win."
No they don't, unless you think winning doesn't include remaining alive. There are no "innocents" among the pallies whose lives are the responsibility of Israel. Not a one. Israel would be more than happy to never again respond to the murder of their people if the pallies would stop trying to murder them. Assuming there are any "innocents" among the pallies, their lives are jeopardized by other pallies...NOT Israel. Dan's a moron.
"Do you not see that one of these things is not like the others?"
Obviously there are superficial differences, but fundamentally in all cases the aggressor is reaping a logical consequence of their actions.
"When the oppressor gets harmed in the act of the righteous seeking justice, that harm is on the oppressor/killer/one causing harm."
Well, this would assume that Hamas is both "righteous" and "seeking justice", and that murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping are legitimate tactics for the "righteous" who are "seeking justice", but sure you go ahead and take that position. Well, it finally happened, Dan finally came out and blamed Israel. Ignoring history, the news, and reality, he really just did it. Dan is now on the side of those seeking genocide.
"BUT, when those seeking justice against the ones causing harm intentionally choose to target and kill innocent people, then THEY have also become the oppressor, the one causing harm to innocents."
This is bizarre, ridiculous, and confusing. Now you seem to indicate that Hamas is the aggressor.
"In just 25 days of war, more than 3,600 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza. They were hit by airstrikes, smashed by rockets, burned by blasts and crushed by buildings."
1. Because their parents didn't take advantage of the opportunity they were given to move out of the zone where the IDF was going to attack Hamas.
2. Because Hamas intentionally and willfully put them in positions where they would be used as human shields.
3. By all means let's ignore the Israeli children who were raped, mutilated, killed, and kidnapped.
4. Let's also ignore the fact that Hamas refuses to release those kidnapped.
"Those children were not the ones causing harm. Those thousands of children were quite literally innocent bystanders of Hamas and Israel fighters willing to cause harm/kill children in their thirst for "justice.""
See above.
"Israel is being played for a fool by the terrorists in Hamas. Israel and people like you (and to a lesser degree, Biden) are being played by the terrorists in Hamas."
What in the hell are you talking about. Hamas engaged in barbaric actions against innocent civilians, kidnapped innocent civilians, hide themselves in places where collateral damage will be high, and that is somehow Israel's fault. What an idiotic hunch. The people who are getting played are folx like you who ignore what the leaders of Hamas have said (that they are intentionally sacrificing women, children, and the elderly) because it generates bad PR for Israel. As someone who's done a fair amount of research and study, is well aware of the history, and who does not support any organization who's stated goal is genocide, I,m pretty confident I'm not being "played". You, on the other hand are doing exactly what Hamas wants you to do when they sacrifice their women, children, and elderly.
"This is the advantage of having a consistent moral rubric that says, "No, I will NOT intentionally cause harm to innocent bystanders in seeking Justice. I will find another way. I will not become a monster to fight monsters.""
Well, that's just great. You're right. Israel should have done nothing. Just allow Hamas to continue to kill, rape, mutilate, and kidnap innocent Israeli's and tourists and accept it. Maybe your "moral rubric" would allow them to ask Hamas nicely if they'd please stop and return the kidnapped. Strangely enough, you've argued that Ukraine is perfectly justified in doing exactly what Israel is doing.
"? I mean... ??? WTF? Do you ACTUALLY think it's okay to kill innocents (not sure why you're scare quoting "innocents...""
I think that it is sometimes regrettably unavoidable that "innocents" will be killed during wartime. In this case, Hamas is literally putting their own "innocents" in positions that guarantee that they will be killed. Hiding behind those human shields of "innocents". FYI, when I use the exact word that you used (in this case "innocents"), I use quotation marks to indicate that I am quoting your exact term. I'm sorry that you are confused by my use of quotation marks to indicate that I am quoting your exact word(s).
" - we're talking about men, women, children and babies, hostages, helper organizations who are potentially being killed... ACTUAL innocent people who are not part of Hamas) EVEN IF it's in the process of punishing atrocities?"
1. The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support Hamas and their stated goal of genocide.
2. The leaders of Hamas admit publicly that they intentionally sacrifice their "women, children, and elderly" to further their cause of jihad and genocide.
3. The "men, women, children, and babies" that were barbarically killed, raped, tortured, mutilated, and kidnapped by Hamas (who've already said they'll do this again and again) might deserve some sympathy as well.
"You can't really think that. You'd scream if your loved ones were caught in the crossfire of armies "in the process of punishing atrocities..." OF COURSE, that's wrong. I can't believe you'd disagree, but you tell me."
Thanks for telling me what I can and can't "really think", where would I be without you to think for me.
an doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between Hamas intentionally targeting women, children, and babies" for rape, torture, mutilation, murder, and kidnapping with the ones Hamas uses for human shields being collateral damage.
Should be "Dan", not "an".
"But yes, it's certainly true that this one Muslim teacher is just as wrong as these Christian defenders of abuse and abusers. But then, you can KNOW that is my position, right? And HOW can you know it's my position?"
And Dan finally gets to the actual point of the post, and he decides to attack Christians and blandly mention the Muslim quoted in passing.
"Because I am always opposed to harm inflicted upon innocent people."
This may be true in some sense. Unfortunately, you choose to remain silent (or very quite) when it's convenient for you and those on your side.
"I haven't commented (I don't believe) on ANY public shootings. Not that one and not the many others committed by right wing extremists."
Interesting. I guess you do choose silence when "innocents" are harmed in many cases.
"Again, I don't post on my blog about everything, because no one does. I remain finite, but thanks for the vote of confidence!"
Again with the double standard.
"See above. I don't comment on everything."
I understand. Silence in the face of barbaric atrocities is a great way to demonstrate your "moral philosophy".
"You mean the J6 rioters who harmed dozens of people, including law enforcement officials? The ones who were arrested and found guilty of various crimes? I haven't really commented much on them. I HAVE commented somewhat on rightwing defense of them, because that's a problem, but once again, I remain finite."
Thanks for making my point. You've expended thousands of words of vitriol, hate, disdain, lies, and bullshit against a small group of people who were mostly peacefully protesting, did minimal damage, and (despite the media lies) killed no one. While remaining silent about a barbaric, brutal, spree of killing/raping/mutilating/kidnapping. I completely understand who a few protesters who failed to accomplish anything deserve the mountain of vitriol you've spewed, while terrorists engaging in barbarism can't even provoke a response from you.
"As a point of fact, I have never one time in all of reality in the real world populated by rational and real people condemned EVEN ONE peaceful J6 protester."
If you say so.
"How about retracting the false claim and apologizing for it, you know, like an adult engaging in a good faith conversation?"
If you can't prove your statement is True, then it seems absurd to label my claim "false".
"I don't comment on every action that happens in the real world. Nor do you. It's not prideful to recognize that one is finite, is it? Seems quite the opposite, to me."
Nope, you just comment extensively on actions that you believe fit with your worldview and the narrative you are communicating. Hell, you don't even make corrections when you are proven wrong.
"Join me in ALWAYS opposing those who'd deliberately kill innocent people for any reason?"
What a bizarrely formulated statement, ending with a question mark.
"Join me in ALWAYS opposing those who'd deliberately kill innocent people for any reason?"
Demands that asshat who defends the murder of people in utero.
Post a Comment