Ethics Quiz: The Fick Calls Loretta Lynch’s Bluff

bluffing

When I read that our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, made this provocative statement—

“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action…I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

…my first thought was “oh-oh” and my second thought was, “Boy, Obama’s appointees are as careless with their rhetoric as he is, or Hillary.

For what really was she saying? It sounds like a threat, but is it?  What does “edges towards violence” mean? Violence? Calling for violence? Or rhetoric anti-gun progressives will blame if there is violence? What does…let me rephrase that…What the HELL does “the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric” mean? For that matter, what are “actions predicated on violent talk”? Does an action that would not be a crime without violent talk become one based on the rhetoric that inspired it? You’re a lawyer, Ms Lynch, how about speaking precise English? What exactly are you trying to say?

So my third thought was, “Well, we better find out, since is this our top law enforcement official talking and if she is really saying, as one might reasonably interpret her vague and convoluted statement to mean, that she’ll be arresting anyone who dares to venture a harsh judgment of Muslims, it would be good to know.

Donald Trump, I’m sure, would like to know.

And  lo and behold, here comes former GOP tea party congressman turned radio talk show host Joe Walsh to settle the issue! He provides a rant on his Facebook page:

“I think Islam has a real freaking problem, alright? There is a cancer in Islam, and if they’re not going to learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country. You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that? Then throw me in jail. I think Islam is evil. I think Islam has a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want them here…[M]ost Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism and/or support Sharia Law…Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed.  If ‘Moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country. Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that ‘edges toward violence? Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”

Wowsers.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz is this…

Whose statement is more irresponsible, Walsh’s, or Lynch’s?

Now, Joe Walsh is not only one of the most unethical Congressmen of recent vintage, but he is also a fick, as I noted in this post. His statement is way over the top and redolent of bigotry, and I’m sure he means every word. Yes, it’s irresponsible. It is not, however, as irresponsible as what Lynch seemed to be saying, however inarticulately. She is trying to chill free speech. Yes, I know: she was pandering to an audience of Muslims, just as her horrible predecessor, Eric Holder, regularly pandered to Al Sharpton followers. Can’t-Do-That. I know Obama is working hard to redefine the role of Attorney General into Chief Partisan Hack, but that’s still not what an Attorney General is supposed to be. She is not supposed to be threatening free speech to bolster current Democratic party obsessions, or corner the Muslim vote.

Or the terrorist vote.

Walsh is disgusting, but somebody had to call Lynch’s bluff. It would have been better coming from someone who had some credibility, but Joe was the first, and whether he believes what he said or not, good for him.

Your move, Loretta.

 

18 thoughts on “Ethics Quiz: The Fick Calls Loretta Lynch’s Bluff

  1. They’re both irresponsible, ignorant, and dangerous.
    He is more ignorant because he said “If ‘Moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.” Obviously stupid.
    She is more dangerous because she can and apparently will actually use her position to prevent free speech ie. ” Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential…they will be prosecuted.” She isn’t talking about prosecuting violence itself, but prosecuting talk of violence.

  2. I have read both the Bible and the Quran. That doesn’t make me an expert, of course, but I do think some things should be said. The Bible (especially the New Testament) clearly delineates affirmative duties to treat other people with kindness and to follow the Golden Rule. The Quran seems to create affirmative duties such as “killing infidels”. Now, I know that the Bible’s messages have been corrupted for evil-American Slavery, the Holocaust, the Crusades just to name a few. But at its core, I truly believe that the vast majority of the Bible (maybe all of it) is a book that asks the people who follow it to treat other people as they would wish to be treated. Of course, there are questionable passages, but in my view, Mathew 7:12 trumps all of them (that’s the obligation of the golden rule). The Quran’s passages, on the other hand, clearly do not contemplate such a rule and indeed the Prophet curses his own relative in one of the suras. It seems to me somewhat reasonable to question persons who would follow such doctrine. If you went to a retreat with a group of people and you found “kill all outsiders” in their bylaws, you might want to get up out of there. Now, if the Bible which is good at its core can be manipulated to evil, then I suppose the Quran, which to me seems to espouse evil at its core, could be manipulated for good. I am fully aware of that possibility. But something about human nature makes me question the likelihood of this. This makes me seriously question the ethics of any Muslim, whether radical or moderate. That being said, I certainly disagree with the Senator wanting to kill all of them. Those who are actively engaging in terrorism, of course, should likely face death. However, those who merely support it should be persuaded not to support it, if possible. Unless, of course, he means financing when he says supporting, and then that’s a much closer issue.

    My major point is that there are groups you cannot belong to and maintain an ethical life. The obvious example is the KKK. It seems to me that there is a pretty strong argument that being of the Muslim faith may put you into such a group. My much more liberal friends think my reasoning is ridiculous, and to be honest, I don’t love it either. It reeks of religious intolerance. But I don’t know how to escape it. What am I missing?

    The only thing I can think is that perhaps, ironically, you cannot really look to the words of religious texts when trying to understand religious groups because the groups themselves don’t look to the texts overmuch. For instance, my grandmother is decidedly “more Catholic” than I am, and yet I am the only one who has read the Bible between the two of us. She believes that the value of human life is the most important value and the Bible says so. I’ve tried to tell her that it clearly doesn’t say so; in fact, it makes quite clear that it has little value on any given human life, and that it’s pre-dominant value is on the golden rule-which makes us disagree strongly on right to die cases. (Grandma thinks doctors shouldn’t be able to assist in suicide because that right belongs to God alone. I believe that the Bible actually may create an affirmative obligation on the doctor to assist in suicide on some occasions). Thus, maybe it’s important to recognize that looking at the text is only a small part of the puzzle. Further, religion has a lot of cultural aspects and it often gets passed on word of mouth from one generation to the next, with very little attention to the original text. It’s like a great big game of generational telephone. All that being said, when we played telephone in school, I don’t recall the final message ever becoming kinder than the original. Thus, if the core of the thing (the Quran) is evil and knowing what I know of human nature, why should I think the things that stem from that should be other than evil?

    All that being said, I certainly don’t need every moderate Muslim to tell me that they despise terrorism. I am going to assume they despise terrorism because I believe in believing in the best of people until they prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that I cannot believe in them. But if a Muslim came up to me and asked me if I thought there religious choice was an ethical choice, I would have to reluctantly say “no”. I’m going to draw an uncomfortable but possibly apt parallel. If someone who was in the KKK came up to me, and said: “I inherited these beliefs from my father who inherited from his father all the way back from my Great-Great-Great Grandfather. It’s part of our culture, and I’ve never known anything else. I’m personally peaceful. I’ve never hurt anyone. I don’t even march. I just belong to the KKK. I abhor when the KKK uses violence of any kind. That’s ethical, right?” My answer would be a resounding “No.” Why should my answer be different vis-a-vis Muslims?

  3. I find it really hard to get it ordered in my mind who is, and who is not, ‘irresponsible, ignorant, and dangerous’.

    One might say that it is ‘dangerous’ that a president who had been self-trained in the social and political philosophy of Liberation Theology – which is, I might add, a philosophical position defined through an elaboration of concrete and enunciated ethics – should become the chief executive of a nation which, as a conglomeration of interests, and one ruled by an international plutocracy, understands itself as being an agent of good, sound ethics and as a ‘moral nation’, etc. etc.

    These are propaganda constructs and as such have nothing to do with elaborated ethics of the sort that we might elaborate and agree on at a personal, conversational level. So, it is dangerous indeed when the Chief Executive is a man who comes from an ideological background that understands vast power concentrations as being a source of oppression and historical misdeed and, secretly or openly, seeks to redress power imbalances. Such a man will, even against his own desire, undermine the power-base of the nation, and reduce that nation to another status.

    Whereas it requires a bold use of strict and overt power to act and assert a nation’s interests, which have little to do with ethical principles.

    I would suggest that the confusion of our present, and the near total confusion within the nation of the USA to understand how it should be defined, is a result of degeneracy and decadence. However, the part that I cannot figure out is how a nation can be ‘great’ and also large and powerful, and at the same time ‘just’ and ‘righteous’. I am inclined toward the understanding that it cannot be both simultaneously. Capitalistic enterprises cannot, in a strict sense, operate as agents of ethical values. And when that class of interests is also allied with militaristic, expansionist, and dominating interests (markets must be opened and forced open if need be), a rhetorical position will develop which is rationalization of certain lines of activity, and where ethical notions are twisted to serve strict interests.

    And so the problem is that no one knows exactly, and no one can enunciate clearly, what ‘America’ is to be. Oddly, Obama with his fantastic election rhetoric, accessed a current of self-definition about ‘America’ which touches the crazed idea that America is a ‘covenant nation’, and many who write on this blog, I have noticed, link up with that ideological assertion. So, what I have begun to conclude here (and in relation to this blog) is that no one has any idea at all how to express ‘ethics’ that function and make sense at a macro-national level. One either has to become much more ethical and thus retreat from a platform of defending power and control, perhaps articulating a political and social philosophy like a Quaker, or to define a Machiavellian politics in which the nation, ruthless and terrible, smashes its external enemies, annihilates them, and simultaneously redefines itself. In any case, though, the ascendent, the triumphant, the nationalistic America of the post-war era – the glorious days when America commanded respect and did not beg for it nor bow down for it – those days are gone. And they are gone because they no longer exist – they no longer can exist – IN YOU.

    What IS ‘America’? What do we mean when we say that? I don’t mean to employ a cliche but let’s face it: America could well mean an international system of Walmarts. Vast production and distribution systems where people go to get stuff. And if you oppose that you will be eliminated. But as to ‘values’? Oh come now! Values begin at an individual level, and values are part of the structure of an individual, and in this sense values must operate AGAINST systems which, in fact, have nothing at all to do with what we (seem to) mean when we speak of ‘values’.

    Oh dear this is all very confusing! A nation so totally turned upside down, and people so profoundly and fundamentally confused, spirals into decline.

    My jeremiad is not unrelated to the topic of this blogpost. I suggest that I have described a macro-problem which functions at a micro-level.

  4. ________________________
    Wyogranny wrote:

    “Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential…they will be prosecuted.”
    ________________________

    Try to get something posted to the NYTs ‘comment’ section that runs counter to the ideological position which is defined by that most ideological newspaper. They will not publish it. And then read the comments! And if you get something through which the censors allowed, the tone of the posters who come out against you is remarkable! (They are literally defending the very righteousness of humankind, defending ‘the good’ against evil. Climate change will become the Satanic vehicle against which nations and communities will rally! You’d better change out your lightbulbs!)

    Hundreds of them, deeply ideological, and quite ‘intolerant’. The issue is one that begins in the mind. And there is a mind-set that desires to create a present that, to me, begins to look like ‘Communism Lite’. In fact, this is where people are tending, I mean the general population. This is what they want. Or is this only some hyper-liberal elite?

    But then if there is a hyper-liberal elite, where exactly is the corresponding hyper-conservative elite? I suggest it does not exist! The so-called ‘right’ is really a flailing branch of the Center Left.

    It is functionally impossible to define a ‘conservative’ position now. It is intolerable intellectually. Those thoughts cannot be thought. I would suggest that in order to define a conservative position in the USA right now will involve a nearly complete redefinition of what America is. A radical conservatism is radically threatening to our entire system!

    I am beginning to think this is so because what is in fact being constructed on a macro-international level is a sort of industrial-consumer-walmart Communism Lite. (I drink tea and I wonder if I just got a bad bag this morning?)

    😉

  5. ____________________________

    Valentine0484 wrote:

    “Now, I know that the Bible’s messages have been corrupted for evil-American Slavery, the Holocaust, the Crusades just to name a few.”
    ____________________________

    There is so much misconstruing in this statement that, at least I think so, it will be impossible to get around. This is a revisionist statement, and it is this sort of revisionism that functions at the core and in the heart of hyper-liberalism. This sort of thinking is (I suggest in the most polite terms) our enemy. In order to get to the truth, or ‘a truth’, we have to defeat this revisionism. (To misconstrue: to misread, to misapprehend, to misjudge.)

    ‘The Bible’ is a compendium of disparate writings. The Bible is the primary document of Roman-Catholic imperialism. But the Bible is not the only document. Civilization in the Roman sense is a mixture of doctrines and philosophies and it is through all of this that our cultures have been constructed. The ‘Bible’s message’ is not one thing, and it is certainly not a rather weak notion of ‘being nice’, it is a set or quite radical and demanding ideas and doctrines about how cultural and social life should be lived. It is also intimately tied up with a very defined, and now largely undermined and rejected, metaphysics.

    People who subscribe to this metaphysic went into the world, attacked the world in a very real sense, remodelled the world, and brought other cultures and people into that world, linking them up with the world of civilization. More of less as the Romans did. There are disadvantages, surely, but it has to be remembered that there were very real advantages. States and cities petitioned Rome to join the empire, and similarly, even in our present, states make a choice to align themselves with the reigning imperium.

    To imply that the Christian South is in some sense an aberration, is a misconstruing of fact and truth. The entire republic was begun on the basis of ideas and actions which derive from European assumptions and categories of thought, and also of metaphysics, and the American South was nothing less than an expression of that. In this sense the American South is the original republic and the present republic the revised version.

    The world’s present issues with ‘Zionism’ is a replay, or a restatement of, or a revivification of, a group of tropes that are linked to Christian antisemitism. Much of the animus directed against ‘global capitalism’ and Zionist-dominated capitalism, is a restatement of these original ideas. A HUGE part of the problem in our present is that people are linked, mentally, to ideas that inform them that capitalism is wrong and an evil, and that we are all implicated and complicit, economically and systematically, in structures of wrong and evil. Therefor, there is an effort to locate it, to point to it, and to ameliorate it. I suggest that in this concrete sense that anti-Zioinism is alive as a concept and alive as a fact within the present. And about 2 billion people right now link the American world-system with Zionism, with Israel, and with Jews and Jewish activity generally.

    Germany attempted a divorce. It attempted to eradicate the Jewish presence from its culture, to uproot it, to exile it. Still now, in the world, huge segments of people are not at all convinced that they desire Jewish influence nor control over ‘their’ affairs. The issue is still very much alive in our present, yet it is submerged. People cannot name it and talk about it, so they use symbols. Or they are not even aware that the conflict is still alive and being played out in front of them.

    In a large sense, at a macro level, a battle is being played and yet also engineered: It is being established through a dichotomy and a polarity: the European West in confrontation with the Muslim ‘other’. This is taking shape as a result of specific activities, a specific design, undertaken by the West and headed up by America. America invaded and provoked, and now is reaping all sort of reaction. But the reaction only riles it more, to provoke more, and to push toward more confrontation. This is all being decided at levels completely outside of our control.

    __________________________

    “All that being said, I certainly don’t need every moderate Muslim to tell me that they despise terrorism. I am going to assume they despise terrorism because I believe in believing in the best of people until they prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that I cannot believe in them.”
    __________________________

    I am anti-Muslim generally speaking and certainly do not wish that Islam gain a foothold within Occidental culture. But I also would wish for the Occident to revivify itself and to redefine itself at an ideological level. And it is now in sheer decline because it can’t, and it won’t.

    But the use of these terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ seem to me totally absurd. ‘We’ have engaged in and carried out levels of terror that are incomparable to anything so far brought against us. It has been said that the first Iraq invasion led to 500,000 indirect deaths: children, the infirm, the old: the most vulnerable. Who cries for them? Where are the monuments to ‘ontological malevolence’ constructed to pay tribute to those dead?

    Shouldn’t a citizen, even if he choses to say ‘I do not CARE”, at the very least be able to understand that we are dealing in propaganda games? That we construct our patriotism out of propaganda distortions? Cannot we begin to define who we are and what we do in this world in STRICT PRINCIPLES OF POWER? Wouldn’t that be more honest and also effective?

    • It might be more honest to some, but if you go back to the beginning, as you say you prefer, the honest response is power is the means of achieving the ultimate goal which is freedom and liberty. The kind of freedom and liberty that allows the most people to achieve the most happiness as they define it without infringing on the freedom of others. A certain amount of power must be given to a representative republic to guarantee that the most people possible get that. Government power comes from people freely allowing a government to use certain powers in certain ways to achieve maximum freedom for everyone.
      It’s probably safe to say that the perfect government to personal freedom ratio has never been achieved, but that doesn’t mean we abandon the proven methods of getting there. There is a lot of human history and in that history it is clear that a representative republic comes the closest to the mark. People choosing to exercise their freedom ethically and morally are people who can live in such a state. And, sadly, such a state is fragile and easily corrupted.
      Power is a two edged sword. It’s so dangerous that we have to constantly check ourselves and our representatives to guard against its misuse. But, it’s worth the effort. The little patches of human history that have managed to achieve the balance should be causes for celebration and examination. It seems today that those little patches are being systematically denigrated and hidden. You have to ask yourself why.

  6. ______________________

    Wyogranny wrote:

    “It might be more honest to some, but if you go back to the beginning, as you say you prefer, the honest response is power is the means of achieving the ultimate goal which is freedom and liberty. The kind of freedom and liberty that allows the most people to achieve the most happiness as they define it without infringing on the freedom of others. A certain amount of power must be given to a representative republic to guarantee that the most people possible get that. Government power comes from people freely allowing a government to use certain powers in certain ways to achieve maximum freedom for everyone.”
    _______________________

    Thanks for your comment. I don’t get many.

    ::: grins :::

    There is of course much that one could say about what you have written. That our republic began, fundamentally, with religious fanatics who opted to escape their restrictive cultures to come to a place to be free to create a religiously-minded society. Yet I have examined material (Robert Bellah and others) who have quite boldly challenged the idea that freedom and liberty to pursue one’s religious ideal is AT ALL compatible with what we now understand as ‘freedom and liberty’. So, I would say (because it seems true to me) that the original republic, and those early founders, were not liberty-seekers – liberty as license and self-will – but extremely dutiful men who roped themselves to very specific programs and within very strict limitations. They were ‘free’ to live extremely structured and, religiously-defined, unfree lives as servants to high ideals (those they recognised and defined).

    I think that this changes a great deal. Today, I think this is true, most people do not define their ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in this way. When they use those terms it means ‘I will do whatever the heck I want, when I want’, and yet they always attach the ‘as-long-as-it-doesn’t-hurt-anyone-else’ suffix.

    I’d even suggest that the notion of ‘happiness’, in comparison to the days of the founding philosophers, has been terribly perverted. Happiness in the founding generation, and certainly in the pilgrim generations, would have been happiness in serving within specific religously-defined parameters.

    _____________________

    “It’s probably safe to say that the perfect government to personal freedom ratio has never been achieved, but that doesn’t mean we abandon the proven methods of getting there.”
    _____________________

    My thinking, nowadays, is that within our nation, and speaking generally, we no longer have any viable sense of moral self-identity. The relationship to a moral self, and a moral life, and one that can be articulated and defended with full gusto and spirit, has been fractured and splintered. Now, when people think of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ they think of its perversion. In any nation, possibly at any historical moment, forever and always, that cannot discover and define itself, or that loses the capacity to do so, will splinter and fracture as we are splintering and fracturing.

    In your writing, though I cannot be sure, I hear the common theme – the common meme really – about ‘equality’ ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. That means, nowadays, the freedom to be a queer, or to have sex with a pet, or to tattoo oneself, or to watch DVD thus-and-such and not to have someone say you can’t. It is a grotesque parody of what a defined freedom should be. I don’t think I am being unfair in saying this, and I try to avoid the cant that Jack often speaks of.

    One has to be able to define high ideals as one defines the reason why one EXISTS. And I regret to say that, as I gaze out on the American landscape, all I see is a confusion and a distortion. What makes people and communities of people strong, vital and relevant? To have a Walmart close by and enough gas to get there and back?

    Additionally, I do not tend to subscribe to the ‘happiness as I define it’ school of thinking (that is ultra-liberalality it seems to me, or radical liberalism). One has to be able, as an a priori, locate those activities and attitudes and choices that can bring one ‘happiness’. One has also to be able – to be capable – of defining those activities that will not and cannot. And that is ethical and moral work. I’d use child-rearing as an example. A child has to be taught and it has to be demonstrated to her what ARE the activities and choices that create ‘happiness’. That is adult work. This is not a free-for-all or something that one allows them to ‘discover’. ‘Happiness’ is a result of acting and living correctly. This is an area that has limits and parameters.

    • I’m not able to follow your lead.You have defined the problem for me. We are not using the same definitions of important words. I’m not a philosopher or a sophist. I define words the way I believe they are most often used in my experience. Simpler is better. Yes, one way to look at freedom and liberty is what I would call license. To be free of consequences. I don’t define it that way. I define it as being able to freely choose an action while at the same time knowing there will be consequences or knowing the consequences and accepting them as inevitable. Choices made in that context are truly free choices. The personal prison or further freedom that result from the consequences is part of the whole. The opposite of this definition of freedom is not being assured of fairness in the application of consequences. I call the whole concept eternal truth. By that I mean that certain choices will always result in certain consequences. There is no other way to insure perfect justice.

  7. _____________________

    Wyogranny wrote:

    “Power is a two edged sword. It’s so dangerous that we have to constantly check ourselves and our representatives to guard against its misuse. But, it’s worth the effort. The little patches of human history that have managed to achieve the balance should be causes for celebration and examination. It seems today that those little patches are being systematically denigrated and hidden. You have to ask yourself why.”
    _____________________

    Because this is a blog dedicated to ethics, and if ethics is about striving to define the highest and the best values that one can, and then talking about it, and applying it, I would suggest – and this always occurs to me – that we can only speak of ethical persons, and we must avoid speaking of ethical states and nations. ‘England doesn’t have friends, she has interests’ someone said. So, I cannot see the conglomerations and constellations of vast corporate holdings, operating internationally in conjunction with a vastly powerful, and deadly and effective, military machine, as being ‘ethical’.

    In order to have been, or to have remained ‘ethical’, it seems our nation would have had to have remained quietist. It also seems to me that people are terribly confused when they speak of ethics and of values. ‘American values’. Is it a ‘value’ to speak about, say, a phenomenal and intensely powerful display of military and strategic might that was the first Gulf War? Is THAT what we mean when we speak of ‘values’? But if we are so confused by geo-political events that we conflate our own selves with them, I think we are in very very difficult and dangerous conceptual waters.

    If we are going to be able to define and to defend our nation at this macro level, we will have to redefine our moral and ethical values to encompass displays and uses of power which … are in fact untenable and philosophically impossible to defend. My problem – and it is a problem, I recognize this – is that I think we have to restructure ethics. It is almost that we have to go back to the drawing board.

    I am a Jew for example, but I have not been able to erase from my consciousness, though I have made efforts to suppress it or to seek justifications, that Israel is a criminal state. Yet I am pro-Zionist. What does this mean? It means that I understand power differently, or that I am willing to. But what I find that I do not wish to do is to LIE about it.

    Geopolitically, in the aftermath of the 2WW, our country dominated the planet and set up the present power-structures. This took place within straight power principles. Others did not have the ‘freedom’ to choose! Choices were made by immensely powerful interests in planning rooms outside and beyond any level of popular truth. Choices were made, and we live in the consequences and the outcomes of those choices.

    That is how power functions.

    We are in a grotesque nightmare and value-confusion because we cannot seem to grasp the ‘realities’ of power. Because we cannot tell the truth, we turn into liars, and we lie essentially to ourselves. But the lie and the effect of the lie does not end at that point, it becomes metaphysical. We lie about the nature of our own existence at the most fundamental levels. We cannot and we will not tell the truth.

    I have been writing on this forum and expressing the same basic idea and asking someone to come forward and to set me straight. To correct my muddled thinking. To tell me how to organise my ideas and my perception. Yet people go silent.

  8. I haven’t read much Bible and I haven’t read any Quran. I recall that the Old Testament has a lot of what would be viewed today as questionable views and that the New Testament turned topsy-turvy and, in my opinion, for the better. How much do I love jesus’s Sermon on the Mount? Plenty.

    As for the Quran, what can I say? Some people proclaim it a religion of peace. Others vehemently disagree. I’m not smart enough to figure it out. I do read Quora every day. Maybe this question, “Where in the Quran does it say that non-believers must be killed?” can shed some light.
    https://www.quora.com/Where-in-the-Quran-does-it-say-that-non-believers-must-be-killed

    Then again, probably not. Opinions, opinions. Just like assholes, right… everybody’s got one. Except me? I dunno. If you see my Twitter posts you’ll find I’m all over the place, politically, socially, even sexually. I kind of enjoy not having an opinion because it allows me to post a wide gamut of differing views. I figure, let somebody else straighten it out.

    Yeah, ok. I have a couple opinions.

    1. I’m a (very) lapsed Jew who abhors Israel for what I perceive as crimes against humanity… the Palestinians.

    2. Likewise I abhor the Palestinians and all other who wish to destroy the state of Israel.

    3. Although, intellectually, I can understand/commiserate the underpinnings/genesis of ISIS, I continue to advocate a policy of “more teeth” because, in my view, they are barbarians of the highest order and must be snuffed out. Like you would a raging forest fire.

    4. I work in a daycare facility. Last year I interacted with three Muslim families whose children were under my care. This year I have one Muslim family. Last year brought me three little boys. I almost quit my job. (It was my first year.) Those kids were intolerable. I asked around. Why? Answer- because male children are brought up as little princes. Well, it took us a couple months, but we brought those three little boys around wherein we actually began to enjoy their company. And this year? Just one sweet little girl. Muslim girls, I’ve been told, are raised to be submissive. And she started out that way. But every day her spark of individuality, her spunkiness, shines brighter, stronger. She is a force to behold.

    The Muslim parents of these children? I don’t have a clue what they’re thinking, especially in today’s world where some Muslims are being vilified. All I know is, they appear appreciative of what we do with their children. They smile. Laugh. They may dress different than you and me, but, underneath…

    See what I mean. I’m all they way down here and I forget what my point is. Was. Time to stop.

  9. I don’t know if either of those positions are “worse”, thy’re both cripplingly stupid. I’m struggling here, I want to call Lynch’s worse, because as the attorney general, she actually has the ability to make average citizen’s lives much more difficult, and so what she says acts as a direct dampening to free speech, and should not be tolerated, where Walsh as a lawmaker has an amount of clout, he cannot actually do as much damage. Maybe that’s just my bias though.

      • Yeah, I missed that. I’m not sure that budges the math though, as a congressman, he held a third of a percent of the votes in congress. His platform and ability to speak is what made him dangerous… And that doesn’t seem to have diluted. I’d argue that Rush Limbaugh has more clout than the average backbencher.

        My struggle here is more towards whether the views themselves make the situation worse, or the ability to do harm. I’m leaning towards the latter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.