Sunday, November 25, 2007

Insanity Of Biblical Proportions

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has seen fit to sharply criticize the U.S. for imperialism to an appreciative audience of Muslims. He also criticized the U.S. for having done nothing to rebuild Iraq's physical or political infrastructure. As to Western civilization as a whole, he muses to this audience that"“[o]ur modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”

As to any criticism of Islam - i.e., the most imperialistic force in history that has left nearly every country in which it has become ascendent a medieval backwater, and not to mention that it has been the driving force responsible for untold carnage in the world over the past two decades - he had words of praise for the Muslim habit of praying 5 times a day. You will find the article here.

Rather than question the Archbishop's sanity, let alone his grasp on reality, it is probably better just to make this brief but wholly appropriate reply in which, I am sure, most Americans will join:

[scroll down]

Update: Victor David Hanson felt a bit more loquacious:

ONE, who is clearing the decks and moving on? And who are the "other people" putting Iraq back together? Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? The British in Basra? First, we read from the anti-war Left that the US is wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of its lives in Iraq, and yet now that we are clearing the decks and not putting it back together? Which is it?

. . . THREE, he should also tally up the amount of money the U.S. has spent for civic and economic development in Iraq over four years, and then compare that to what Britain invested in any four-year period in their centuries-long occupation of India.

. . . FIVE, if he is worried about the soul of civilization in general, and the U.S. in particular, he might equally ask his Muslim interviewers about the status of women in the Muslim world, polygamy, female circumcision, the existence of slavery in the Sudan, the status of free expression and dissent, and religious tolerance (i.e., he should try to visit Mecca on his next goodwill, interfaith tour) .

SIX, all Williams will accomplish is to convince Episcopalians in the U.S. not to follow the Anglican Church, and most Americans in general that, if they need any reminders, many of the loud left-wing British elite, nursed on envy of the US, still petulant over lost power and influence, and scared stiff of the demographic and immigration trends in its own country, are well, unhinged.

Read it here.


Ben said...


Anonymous said...

The Archibishop is right.

Like the Archibishop rightfully critizing U.S. policy in Iraq, I suppose heads of state of China, Japan and Germany should not be allowed to criticize any other nation because of their own nations' past atrocities.
And you could not have picked a less credible figure to hypothetically give the archbishop the finger.
Some two/thirds of the American public give Bush the finger.

Anonymous said...

I do dislike anonymous posters.

As to the Archbishop, to enumerate and respond to the things wrong with his actions would take near a tome - beginning with perhaps a Bernard Lewis tome, and then Steve Emerson, Bob Baer, and Walid Phares.

As to whether the Archbishop is free to criticize America, regardless of the fundamental stupidity of this particular criticism before this particular audience, of course he is. Just as I am completely free to respond - though in this case I took the "one picture is worth several hundred thousand" words approach rather then actually pen all those words. On someone with the Archbishops demonstrated lack of any fundamental grasp of history or current events, the words would have been wasted.

As to you, should you wish to argue in support of the Archbishop's ill conceived criticism, I will be more than happy to do so on these pages.

As to Bush, his credibility has always been high with me. I have never quite bought into the Democratic attacks on him. While he certainly has had his faults, both in a failure to communicate and an embrace of big government and spending, his foreign policy has been an aggressive gamble - but one which looks like it might achieve its goals. If in fact we do complete Iraq, and it has the ramifications that were intended throughout the Middle East, Bush will go down as one of our most successful Presidents.

As to 2/3rds of the public you site, it would seem that more are giving the finger to Democrats in Congress who might agree with the Archbishop. Be that as it may, I find most polls pretty useless at any rate. You may keep your dreams of BDS all the way up til next November, then the only poll that matters will be played out.

Anonymous said...

This is anonymous again.
I suppose I could make up a name instead, if you prefer. Why should I use my real name. Who does? And I'm in a high profile position so I'm unable to have anyone who googles my name find my political views.

The above post from GW is an idiot post.

What people like that refuse to acknowledge is the ONLY reason the Democrats in congress are ranked so low is because of their massive failure to curb Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Administration. People hate Bush.
People hate the Dems in control of Congress for failing to sidestep the moron president.
Got it now.
If the polls rightfully went a step further and questioned the people why they are dissatisfied with the Dems, significantly large percentages would acknowledge the Dems do not have enough of a majority in Congress to override the Rethugs in Congress as well as presi-dented-head.

Well that sounds good. I suppose "watermelon head" or Mad Magazine Arthur E. Newman would be a more accurate definition.

grumpybumpas said...

Anytime that a born again christion stands on a pedistol and shouts trust me,you had best keep your pants up and legs crossed as you are in for a holy screwing.