Not Holding My Breath
Greg Easterbrook of the New Republic, in a scathing review of the new Tarantino movie, Kill Bill, makes some arguably anti-semitic remarks in his blog (and subsequently apologizes). The Los Angeles Times lets an anti-Christian screed about a US Army General--who happens to be a fundamentalist Christian--slip by its editors into print.
My question: when are the powers-that-be in Christianity and Judaism going to issues their versions of a fatwa?
When are Pope John Paul II, Franklin Graham and Abe Foxman going to let loose their minions to wreck vengeance on Easterbrook and the LA times for the vicious slander of their respective religions?
Say what? What’s that you say? They likely won’t do such horrible things? Why not? According to the LA Times Editorial, fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims like the terror apologist and Jew-hater Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad are exactly the same.
When Jews and Christians start murdering innocents on purpose without the swift and overwhelming condemnation of the majority of their respective adherents, I’ll buy the analogy.
Watching the LA Times self-destruct has all the charm of gawking at a pile-up with bodies strewn all over the highway: curiousity is winning out over disgust.
(Thanks to Dennis Prager and Charles Johnson)
"Watching the LA Times self-destruct has all the charm of gawking at a pile-up with bodies strewn all over the highway: curiousity is winning out over disgust."
In my book, watching the Daily Monopoly self-destruct is better. It's almost like watching the pile-up while somehow knowing that every single person involved was someone who had pissed you off at one time or another.
Posted by: Xrlq | October 17, 2003 at 05:11 PM
LOL! Even better.
Posted by: baldilocks | October 17, 2003 at 05:20 PM
So you're saying that Boykin is not A Muslim-hater? But a guy that says that Muslims must fight Jewish world control is a Jew hater? Boykin says that Muslims are idol worshippers!Look, either they both are haters of these religions or just two guys with opinions on religions they don't like. Enough with this parsing to stand up for "your side". Integrity is much more solid ground.
Posted by: walter | October 18, 2003 at 12:44 AM
Apparently Easterbrook has been fired by ESPN. I am unhappy about this.
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs gave Easterbrook a very hard time initially, but after Easterbrook apologized Johnson wrote: "There’s no weaseling here; he apologizes directly and simply, and it comes across as totally sincere. Very classy. Case closed."
See here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8573_Easterbrook_Apologizes
So, now he's been fired. I think that's excessive.
On to Boykin. walter, don't you think that this is inevitable? Militant Islamists, backed by a "silent majority" of the world's Moslems, threw down the gauntlet to us.
Just as in the very beginnings of that religion. ("Ideology" would perhaps be a more accurate word for Islam.)
Of the world's three monotheistic faiths it's the only one that declares the two others to be completely invalid.
And now they're at it again. I tell you honestly, I am afraid. Not afraid as in panicked and hysterical, but very worried for what they will try to do to me and mine.
Given this fear, do you really blame some of us who are Christian or Jewish that we seek solace and reinforcement in our faith?
And again, Boykin was not voicing a government position. He was addressing fellow Christians as a lay speaker. The more I think about it, the more I think it was probably wrong of him to have worn the uniform. That left open the door to an interpretation that he was speaking on behalf of the government.
But if what he must not be allowed to speak these thoughts in church, then how can we justify having chaplains in our military? This "political correctness" thing will sooner or later be the death of us all.
Posted by: 10^6aire | October 18, 2003 at 11:36 AM
10^6aire,
"On to Boykin. walter, don't you think that this is inevitable? Militant Islamists, backed by a "silent majority" of the world's Moslems, threw down the gauntlet to us."
We set the parameters for our struggle against global terror, noit the terorist. Just because they say it is so doesn't mean we must also. I disagree with you on the "silent majority" issue. I don't think most Muslims want to see the US destroyed. They might want to see us get our nose bloodies every once in a while, but that come with being the worlds only superpower. In that respect they are not differnt than most of the world's non-Muslims.
"Of the world's three monotheistic faiths it's the only one that declares the two others to be completely invalid."
Last time I checked lots of Christians don't think that Islam (or any other religion) is valid and use the Bible to back it up. If you don't accept Jesus you can't get into Heaven, right? My wife was telling me the other day how a co-workers father-in-law on passing a Jewish ce,metary said, "I'm sure would hate to be buried there since those people are in Hell." I woudl say that Judaism is the only of the three that does not say the others are invalid. That could be due tot he fact that it predates the others and is not a proselytizing religion like Christianity and Islam
"Given this fear, do you really blame some of us who are Christian or Jewish that we seek solace and reinforcement in our faith?"
No, I don't. In fact I do the same. But that has nothing to do withthe issue. The guy is a top official in the government. As Bush has said, and I hope means it, this is about defeating a threat to the world. OBL can couch it in religious term, although I think he could care less about religion and cares more for power, but that is not our reason.
"And again, Boykin was not voicing a government position. He was addressing fellow Christians as a lay speaker. The more I think about it, the more I think it was probably wrong of him to have worn the uniform. That left open the door to an interpretation that he was speaking on behalf of the government."
Thanks for restating my point. But whether he did it out of or in uniform, his statement will be taken that way. Although I think he is wrong, it is fine if he believes that but he shouldn't be stating it in public, or certain private audiences, while he is in that position.
"But if what he must not be allowed to speak these thoughts in church, then how can we justify having chaplains in our military? This "political correctness" thing will sooner or later be the death of us all."
Not sure what your point is here. How does thinking his statement is wrong and out of line given his level in the Administration, lead to the hackneyed "political correctness" phrase and removng chaplains? No one is saying you can't be have your own faith (that is one of the things we are fighting gfor, right?). This ain't about Boykin's religion but his judgement.
Posted by: walter | October 18, 2003 at 03:12 PM
A military person is allowed to state his/her religious beliefs in public,as long as it's not in a duty capacity.
Walter, I'm saying that the man should not be ousted from his position(or be forced to retire)for being a Christian, no more so than if he were a Muslim. No more, no less.
This is what the writer of the editorial calls for.
Posted by: baldilocks | October 19, 2003 at 09:32 PM
Again, no where in that article does it state he should be fired for being a Christian.
Posted by: walter | October 21, 2003 at 05:14 PM
More on Mr. Arkin, the journalist who "exposed" Boykin here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/279oetfg.asp
It appears that Arkin has an agenda, and may not be entirely honest in his methods. Why isn't he releasing the tapes?
Posted by: 10^6aire | October 24, 2003 at 01:51 AM