On Sep 25, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
Now, comparing Satan and Hitler. There's a problem here, comparing human to non-human. Satan embodies evil and he's the chief of deceivers. Hitler committed incredibly evil acts. Satan doesn't have any direct power in the world, but us humans do.
Sorry, but if you are comparing Satan to Hillary running for the office of President of the United States, it is incorrect to claim that he couldn't have any direct power in the world. If you are positing the concept of Satan as President of the United States, you can't explain it away by claiming he would have no power.
I don't know if I've been one of the vein-popping folks about the "Left's" attempt to call Bush a Nazi, and that he should be killed, etc. I tend to just shake my head at such rants.
Usually, so do I. However, when there are valid historical parallels, such as the use of fear of outsiders as justification to erode civil liberties and suspend the normal checks on government power, they can be instructive. You don't need to admire Nazis in order to understand that their techniques to take full control of what was supposed to be a democracy were ruthlessly brilliant.
What did he say? - that Hillary running would motivate Christians more than if Satan himself were running. He did not call Hillary Satan, and he didn't even say Hillary was "worse" than Satan. I'm surprised Ed misunderstood that point.
He didn't say that she was worse than Satan; only that his followers would consider her worse than Satan. Saying that someone's candidacy would be more motivating is equivalent to saying that they would be a worse choice.
So, if someone hears "Satan" is running for office, they'd most likely be amused but pay it little heed. But Hillary, and her past actions/views, is very visible. Her record regarding Christianity is there for all to see. So I can see why Falwell made such a joke.
OIC - when a high-profile Christian such as Jerry Falwell uses these references, we're all supposed to laugh along. But when some anonymous, unknown jerk submits a ridiculous video about Bush, well, we're supposed to be outraged!!
This was my point: that when you don't like the target of such comments, people will find a way to explain it away; to make it innocuous. But when the target is one of your guys, why, there is no punishment harsh enough to satisfy our outrage! I think that you've demonstrated this nicely.
-- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
