Examples posted by Zeyad, 1 June, on his blog, "Healing Iraq":
Gemini: Your parents have been nagging you to lay low and leave the country. Yet you are worried about an imminent death squad attack against your area. Plan your escape route carefully and keep a spare grenade for emergencies. Attack day: Thursday. Grenade No.: 5
Leo: A tip from one of your friends wrongfully ends you up in an occupation detention camp. Learn to distinguish friend from foe. Avoid female American jail wardens, unless you like to explorethe arts of exhibitionism and BDSM. Arrest day: Friday. Prison cell No.: 26
Libra: Things are slowing down in your neighborhood. Your fellow watch-team members have nothing to do but smoke and trade mobile ring tones all night. It would probably not be a bad idea to take some time off from your guard duties and pay more attention to your love life. Lucky day: Monday. Street No.: 27
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
A READER TAKES ISSUE
I received a comment by e-mail from Voloras in France regarding my post 10 May, "CARDINALS SAY IGNORANCE FUELS 'DA VINCI CODE'.
Voloras wrote, "Your comment regarding the Cardinals and ignorance was really rather unfair. To trot out an old chestnut, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Ignorance is such a fine wide spread human tradition, yet you seem to imply that Catholics are some how more imbued with the quality. "I at least know well Jesus's comment about the rich person's chances of getting into heaven, the camel the the eye of the needle; so why the #^$%# did so many US citizens look to a rich Texan politician for "moral leadership"? I think Catholics do a little better theology-wise than the evangelical born agains who swear every word in the Bible is absolute truth yet do not keep a kosher household. They eat pork, ignore that whole post-menses tent-cloistered cleansing, and have totally failed on the sacrifices offered on uncut stones command (Leviticus is full of rules they conveniently ignore, while digging deep for reasons to hate gays). Catholics at least recognize that not every word of the Bible is literal truth. "Give the Popes some credit for embracing (however belatedly) science and evolution. But even the Pope can't make all Catholics learn Darwin's theory."
Here's my reply:
I asked the question, "If Christians, especially Roman Catholics, are ignorant about the precepts of their faith, whose fault is that?" I answered the question, "The fault, dear sirs, is yours!" This upset Voloras.
I was referring to this statement in the article: "Cardinal Paul Poupard, said the book seriously twisted Church history but most laymen did not have enough religious knowledge to separate fact from fiction." My point was that if laypeople don't have enough religious knowledge, it is the fault of those who teach the laypeople. I was not knocking Roman Catholics. I merely pointed in particular to Roman Catholics because this article discussed the RC Cardinals bemoaning that laypeople might not have enough knowledge about church history to keep them from believing what they read in books or see on the screen.
As to the comment about the rich Texan, I and 49% of the American people did not vote for him either time. Therefore, most of us do not look to him for moral guidance, or any other kind of guidance.
For your information, I never made any reference to the rich Texan, about evolution, born-again Christians, or the literal interpretation of The Bible in my post. The next time you object to a statement made by anyone, I suggest you stick to the subject at hand. Jumping to conclusions based on remarks not made in what you are evauating shows a lapse in logic. I do, however, thank you for your comment.
Voloras wrote, "Your comment regarding the Cardinals and ignorance was really rather unfair. To trot out an old chestnut, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Ignorance is such a fine wide spread human tradition, yet you seem to imply that Catholics are some how more imbued with the quality. "I at least know well Jesus's comment about the rich person's chances of getting into heaven, the camel the the eye of the needle; so why the #^$%# did so many US citizens look to a rich Texan politician for "moral leadership"? I think Catholics do a little better theology-wise than the evangelical born agains who swear every word in the Bible is absolute truth yet do not keep a kosher household. They eat pork, ignore that whole post-menses tent-cloistered cleansing, and have totally failed on the sacrifices offered on uncut stones command (Leviticus is full of rules they conveniently ignore, while digging deep for reasons to hate gays). Catholics at least recognize that not every word of the Bible is literal truth. "Give the Popes some credit for embracing (however belatedly) science and evolution. But even the Pope can't make all Catholics learn Darwin's theory."
Here's my reply:
I asked the question, "If Christians, especially Roman Catholics, are ignorant about the precepts of their faith, whose fault is that?" I answered the question, "The fault, dear sirs, is yours!" This upset Voloras.
I was referring to this statement in the article: "Cardinal Paul Poupard, said the book seriously twisted Church history but most laymen did not have enough religious knowledge to separate fact from fiction." My point was that if laypeople don't have enough religious knowledge, it is the fault of those who teach the laypeople. I was not knocking Roman Catholics. I merely pointed in particular to Roman Catholics because this article discussed the RC Cardinals bemoaning that laypeople might not have enough knowledge about church history to keep them from believing what they read in books or see on the screen.
As to the comment about the rich Texan, I and 49% of the American people did not vote for him either time. Therefore, most of us do not look to him for moral guidance, or any other kind of guidance.
For your information, I never made any reference to the rich Texan, about evolution, born-again Christians, or the literal interpretation of The Bible in my post. The next time you object to a statement made by anyone, I suggest you stick to the subject at hand. Jumping to conclusions based on remarks not made in what you are evauating shows a lapse in logic. I do, however, thank you for your comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)