David:
I appreciate your answer. Email is, by nature, normally a cold medium (to use the old McLuhanesque term, if anyone remembers him) and also often seen as a casual one. One does not go to the trouble in email that one goes to in more formal writings. We tend to rely on code words and phrases or other terms that we believe are generally known to all.
However, that this is so does not make it right. I have interspersed some comments, below, meant to point out where there might be some areas of your argument supported more by faith and dogma than by evidence. If I am correct in that assumption, then I again pose my earlier question (in a slightly different form), which you did not answer: "How is your argument and form of assertion of 'truth' any different from that of the 'hypocrisy' you tax Bush with? That is, if your arguments are based on the 'sacred' writings of the Internet, how is your position any different from that of religious people? If it is similar, then what right do you have to bash Christians, or religious people in general?"
Timothy Lillie, PhD
Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
The University of Akron
Akron OH 44325-4205
330-972-6746 (Voice)
330-972-5209 (Fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:48 PM
> To: Lillie,Timothy H
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
>
>
>
> Tim,
>
>
>
> Yes -- I don't always go to all the energy to back up my
> statements with evidence. I usuallly don't have the time.
I wonder about this statement. Wasn't this generally George Bush's attitude before he was pressured into gathering evidence against Iraq? It is interesting that you share the same attitude toward evidence, yet have such divergent views.
And I'm
> not sure that it will necesarily have any bearing on the beliefs of
> those of us who prefer to live in Cloud Nine over the
> politices of the
> U.S. elite.
Dear me: who are these terribly naive people who OBVIOUSLY don't have the learning and sophistication you have????
Neither, unforutunately, do the mass murderers in
> Washington
When Clinton refused to respond to the genocide in Rwanda, did you also characterize him as a "mass murderer?" When he bombed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan to try to shake off press coverage of his sexual predation of an intern in the White House, did you call that "mass murder?"
provide any real, convincing evidence when they
> spread their gospel about supposedly wanting to "rid the world of
> terrorism", or that Saddam is suddenly a threat to the world. They
> just rely on playing off the emotions of the population through their
> mouthpieces in the media.
Now this I tend to agree with; the only part we might differ on is that I think this is used by so-called "progressives" when it suits them as well as so-called "conservatives."
>
> (1) I don't think the first point is of real importance
> since we seem
> to agree that the American elite's resurgent interest with
> Iraq is of
> a cynical nature.
Likely so; if you define "elite" as being class-based, rather than politics-based. After all, Bill Clinton came into office in 1992 concerned about education and promptly sent his daughter to a private school, because the DC schools were apparently not good enough for her. And I voted for him. Twice.
>
> (2) There is much evidence floating around the net which
> suggests that this whole "we didn't know they were coming" and
> "we weren't prepared" arguments as per the airplanes crashing in
> the twin towers and subsequently the Pentagon building is bogus
> (And they are not flimsy consipiracy theories!). There is a airforce
> base -- the name escapes me -- that is on 24 hour alert for these
> types of things. For some reason, it took a snooze on the day of
> Sept. 11. The white house and the Pentagon, with the help of the
> media, have provided conflicting and contradicatory statements
> about the issue that simply don't add up. I will provide you
> with the
> link to information about the issue when I find the time.
Thanks. I suppose I could find links that would provide you with "information" about how the Holocaust did not happen, but I am afraid that Internet sites are not normally evidence, in my book.
>
> Bush and company (e.g., Cheney) have had business dealings with
> the Bin Laden family up until the Sept. 11 (as far as I know it's
> continued).
The first part of this statement may be true; I don't know. The parenthetical addition is simply a snide assertion.
One has to wonder why the President of the U.S. and
> his close associates would have business ties with the family of
> one of the most wanted men in the world (i.e., he was up on the list
> even before the attacks) especially if they were supposedly trying
> to hunt him down? ALso, it was reported in the Washington Post (I
> believe it picked it up the story from a news wire service),
> or one of
> the mainstream publications, that a CIA agent(s) met with Bin
> Laden just prior to the september 11 attacks in the UAE, where he
> was said to receiving medical treatment. I don't know how much
> truth there is to the story, yet one have to become a tad suspicious
> when it receives such scant attention in the media, especially
> since it's generally the case that the most pertinent information
> (namely, that which could really embarass, not to mention,
> discredit the U.S. government and the entire ruling class) is that
> which is not discussed in the open.
Again: Evidence, please. The Washington Post is not known for its courageous unbiased coverage any more than, say, "National Review" in the US. I have heard (correct me if I am wrong) that "The Spectator" in the UK is the "conservative" magazine which is also not unbiased.
>
> There has been people who have attempted to piece together the
> puzzle surrouding this issue. When I have the time, I will provide
> you with the links.
>
> (3) I think the third point speaks for itself. The U.S. elite
> has always
> advanced a plausible excuse to justify their aggressive foreign
> policy (see: Latin America, Indo China, etc).
See dictators, fundamentalists, and others all over the world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability
> discussion
> Date sent: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:10:00 -0500
> From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>,
> <DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]>
>
> > David:
> >
> > I appreciate your passion about this topic and I am aware that
> there are many who share it. However, you have simply asserted
> these beliefs as if they are somehow "real". You ask us, in fact, to
> take your point of view on faith, since you provide no evidence for
> your comments (especially the one that asserts that the 9/11 event
> was behind the twin towers terrorist attacks or knew about them
> and chose to do nothing, which is a very serious charge).
> >
> > How does your thinking, below, differ in any essential way from
> that of religions and religious thinkers who assert various points of
> view as ordained by God and incumbent upon followers to believe?
> >
> > TL
> >
> > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > The University of Akron
> > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Quarter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:51 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > A fews comments:
> > >
> > > (1) BUsh's "concern with Saddam" (read: Iraq) has little if
> > > anything to do with ensuring future electoral success (although
> I'm
> > > sure this is obviously a concern of his) and almost entirely to do
> > > with gaining control of oil fields, installing american
> > > "friendly" Iraqi
> > > vassals, installing the upteemth U.S. base in the world,
> geopolitics,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > (2) This problem is/was American created. The whole twin-
> towers
> > > affair was just a convenient (albeit every plausible) excuse for
> Bush
> > > and his "allies" to continue their war drive against thier foes
> (read:
> > > their wanting to rid the world of any opposition to American-
> style
> > > capitalism and western occupation, western hegemony,
> > > authoritarian rule, un-democratic tendencies, etc). Moroever,
> there
> > > is considerable evidence to suggest that the American
> government
> > > WAS behind this entire event; and if not behind it, knew about
> it,
> > > and did nothing to prevent it.
> > >
> > > (3) It's questionable whether this Bin Laden character is even
> alive.
> > > I have to wonder, for example, how the supposedly most
> wanted
> > > man in the world (read: of the U.S. elite) is able to repeatedly
> evade
> > > capture from the police men of the world (i.e., U.S.-led western
> > > "peacekeepers"[sic!!]), and even with a substantial bounty on
> his
> > > head?
> > >
> > >
> > > (4) Bush and Blair call themselves "Christians" for one or
> perhaps
> > > all of the following reasons together: so as to cater to their
> > > constituents; to present themselves as moral individuals as
> > > opposed to ravaging, genocidal maniacs; to trick people into
> > > beleiving that their policies are actually driven by moralistic
> > > concerns as opposed material concern, self-interest, geo-
> politics,
> > > etc; cause they know that most westerners are gullible, are
> sheep
> > > who believe 80 to 90 percent of what they hear spoken of by
> > > government, and other insitutions of social control, etc;
> because
> > > government always says the opposite of what it believes, and
> > > always does the opposite of what it says. Take your pick.
> > >
> > > (5) I don't think criticizing Bush and Blair's supposed
> > > dedicatioin (?)
> > > to "their" faith stems out of any deep concern with Christianity,
> as
> > > opposed the hypocrisy of two men portraying themselves as
> moral
> > > human beings, yet simultaneously being responsible for
> inflicting
> > > so much hardship, suffering (not least, bloodshed) on the rest of
> > > the world.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > Date sent: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:48:42 -0000
> > > Send reply to: Larry Arnold <larry@LARRY-
> > > ARNOLD.COM>
> > > From: Larry Arnold <larry@LARRY-
> > > ARNOLD.COM>
> > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability
> > > discussion
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > > I cannot help thinking that Bush with his Winston Churchill
> > > fixation is
> > > > intent upon doing a Maggie Thatcher to ensure his electoral
> > > success by going
> > > > down as the guy who finally did for Saddam, as Maggie did to
> > > Galtieri but
> > > > solving nothing in the process.
> > > >
> > > > It was some guys masquerading as airline pilots, intent upon
> a
> > > Jihad that
> > > > started this current round of renewed hostilities. You can all
> > > sleep safe in
> > > > your beds though that my eyesight is such that I am never
> likely
> > > to get a
> > > > pilots licence as I am not even allowed to drive a bus.
> > > >
> > > > To return to the point, Bush and Blair may call themselves
> > > Christians as
> > > > much as Osama bin Laden may call himself a Muslim. You
> > > cannot define either
> > > > faith merely by what some of its adherents do in it's name.
> > > >
> > > > The attack upon Bush and Blair can be seen as has been
> > > pointed out, not so
> > > > much as an attack on there supposed hypocrisy but an
> attack
> > > upon the
> > > > religion (and by implication faith in general) which they
> > > ostennsibly
> > > > espouse and a general excuse for an outbreak of faith
> bashing
> > > form those
> > > > whose atheist and humanistic perspective is no less a
> profession
> > > of "faith"
> > > > than any other and equally unprovable as an eternal verity.
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf
> > > Of Lillie,Timothy H
> > > > > Sent: 17 December 2002 14:10
> > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure what this means.
> > > > >
> > > > > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > > > > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > > > > The University of Akron
> > > > > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > > > > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > > > > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________End of
> message______________________
> > > >
> > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> > > > are now located at:
> > > >
> > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > >
> > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > >
> > > ________________End of message______________________
> > >
> > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> > > are now located at:
> > >
> > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > >
> > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > >
>
>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
