Another 'monkey' reference in hate email going around.

[DebJ]

Okay, so I am trying some logic here with a right-wing "Christian" cranky, lonely old guy of 70+ years.....
we could lay some easy money as to the outcome of this effort, but I have just had "Enough!"
This guy just keeps spewing out the hate mail, usually accompanied by statements like "I won't choose
Obama over God" (???????) and the like. And of course, references to Obama being black (the real
kicker for him, I think.)
This is my response to the hate email (posted at the bottom of this) calling Obama a pantywaist and
a monkey, and to some RW forwarder's response that they wouldn't feel safe to travel now.

-------------------------------
Hello Mr. x. I would sincerely like to understand your opinion on some things regarding
faith, our democracy and the world stage. I have highlighted in red my questions for you, if you
will be kind enough to respond, or if you prefer, to forward them to a like-minded friend who
might be kind enough to respond.

I actually have traveled overseas in the recent past. In 2003, I went to London, England, to
Paris, Nice, and Ruan in France, to Interlaken, Switzerland, to Rome and Venice, Italy. While
there, I had many discussions with travelers from all over the world, from as far away as Ethiopia
and many other countries. We were greeted warmly by all we met. The discussions were civil
and respectful.....the way that people from democracies are supposed to engage in discussion, yes?

Let me see if you agree with my definition of democracy. In a democracy, the people
are allowed to voice their opinions. The majority opinion is allowed to (peacefully) create
policies and actions, and in a good democracy, in a functioning democracy, the minority
opinion is also given concessions in these policies and actions. Genuine democracy is
only achieved through a)listening to all parties and b)compromise, and compromise requires
that each side gives up something(s) it does NOT want to give up....compromise makes you
go 'ouch'! on all sides of the aisle. This definition is the one I teach my students. I repeat
it over, and over, and over, even after one of them groans and says stop repeating it (after I have
done so for weeks), and they all get it right on the test, and hopefully, carry that lesson with them in life.
(If you ever studied American law (I have taken just two courses in it), this is also the essential
core of the American justice system in civil / business cases.)

Would you agree with this definition? If not, I'd like to hear your definition; I can use your
definition in future classes and let my students democratically decide what democracy means.
The best way for them to learn to participate is for them to take opposing or variant views,
discuss them with others, and come to a 'compromise'. They must learn to do this, in order
for our country to carry on indefinitely, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you agree that the
most critical sign of a genuine democracy is the existence of different opinions? (Contrast
this to North Korea, for example, where Kim Jong-il just celebrated his re-election with
100% of the vote.) So we must celebrate our differences of opinion, strive to understand
the viewpoint of the other side, agree to disagree, and be strong and wise enough to
compromise (ouch) so as to move forward together, yes? Is this not the very heart of democracy?
Shouldn't we be fearful of a country where everyone must hold the same opinion (there are
many to choose from besides North Korea, of course.)

(What I am seeking is to understand the other position, because it really confuses me!)

Now, the United States has a policy of promoting democracy around the world, correct? I think
it is safe to say that every U.S. citizen agrees with this policy, but we disagree as to how to
actually implement that 'promotion of democracy', how to put that philosophy into action.
Some of us believe the way to do that is to promote justice and equity (like, if Somalian pirates
had a choice other than piracy or starving to death, that would be justice, and the chance
for democracy over anarchy would greatly increase. If your choice was piracy or starvation,
do you know what you would actually do, especially beginning at the age of like 8 years old?).
Others believe in more forceful options, in seeking democracy through military action instead.
I would guess that most people lean towards one side or the other, and make exceptions on a
case by case basis, wouldn't you? And some people want to use both options, the carrot and
the stick (but some want the carrot first, and some want the stick first, LOL).

One of the many reasons for this difference of opinion comes from our being, as you say, a "Christian"
nation. This is not a single, unifying description, to say our nation is Christian. Instead, it is an
expression of a diversity that can be quite extreme. The term "Christian" incorporates many, many,
very, very different philosophies. Some Christians seem to like the hymn that goes "Onward Christian
soldiers, marching as to war", and take that quite literally. They see Jesus Christ as a fierce warrior,
literally engaged in bloody battles. At the other extreme are Christians who are pacifists, who focus
on Jesus' teachings such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself", "Turn the other cheek", "Judge not lest
ye be judged", "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", etc., etc. These Christians take these
words of Jesus literally, believe that every Christian should do the same, and that conversion should
be done through means that help others, that punishment is God's right alone. And then there are a
milion different versions in between those extremes. All this to say that being "Christian" does not
in any way denote some universal philosophies or characteristics.

In my opinion, as a historian who has often studied the evolution of Christianity, I find the term useful
only as to indicate that one is NOT something else (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.), and that there is a
faith that Jesus is the fulfillment of a prophecy from God (some say Jesus is God, some do not, some
believe in a Trinity, some do not, etc, etc, etc. so many variances! Even Muslims believe that Jesus
was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy). Even Christians who belong to the same denomination, who
attend the same church and services, who sit next to each other in the pews every week, do not
agree with one another. The amazing fact is that diversity is God's own creation, is it not? Free Will
He gave us, so clearly He wanted us to exercise Free Will, right? Or else He would have made us like
spiders or kittens, etc. He created the amazing diversity of life on this planet and the diversity of our
universe. I think God must like diversity, else why would He have created it? Allowed it? What do you
think? I would guess that He enjoys being appreciated in many different ways. I am loved in very
different ways by my children, my parents, my husband, and my friends; I like those different kinds
of love; each serves a different need. We are created in God's image. Does God like being loved in
different ways, too? What do you think?

Historically speaking, Christians have not worked in unity towards much of anything. In fact, they have
spent hundreds of years disagreeing with themselves, leaving little time or money for anything else.
There were many, many wars fought by one Christian country against another Christian country, where
a real point of contention in those wars was how to define "Christianity". (Example: Spain vs. the Netherlands).
Not many people were 'brought to God' or 'brought to Jesus' by these efforts. Indeed, the opposite happened.
Today, in this country, instead of fighting with swords or guns about what a 'real' Christian is, we insult
each other. Again, this does not seem to be bringing people to God; in fact, the opposite seems to
be happening. Should we be trying something else, since this isn't working? Isn't one definition of
insanity to keep doing the same things and expect different results? If one really wants to open others
hearts to God, if that is the goal, shouldn't we be trying some other method besides fighting with swords
and/or with words? What do you think?
Why did God create such diversity? What does He want us to do, how does He want us to act, towards
this diversity in life and in humanity? Does He want us to celebrate His creation's infinite diversity, to
appreciate it, to love it (as He must), to love Him for creating that astounding diversity? Or does He
want us to be bitter, cold, egocentric, stubborn, and fighting each other,even to the death, over our
own mortal (i.e. fallible) opinions of what He wants? Or do you think that (some particular man or
religion) absolutely knows the mind and heart of God, and so is infallible? What do you think?
I genuinely would like to know.

Okay, so now we go to another level of democracy. The USA has it, and desires to promote it
worldwide. Now, we have a sort of 'world democracy', wherein all of the democracies of the world
meet to make policy and take actions on those policies. There is a parallel here: in the US, each
of us is represented by Senators and members of the House of Representatives, who must compromise
and make policy and actions representing the entire country. To do this, they
must listen to their constituents before they take action. On the world scene, isn't the democratic
process the same? That is, to be a truly democratic process, shouldn't it be the same? Countries
are each represented by their own leaders, ambassadors, et al.... who are to represent their
constituents. When they meet on the world level, they must do the same process that our Congress
is to do: they must listen to all sides, must listen to both their own constituents (in this case, their
country's citizens) and to other representatives (of other countries), then they must hammer out
agreements that are the best possible compromise for their own countries' needs as well as those
of the world in general (as our Congress must do to balance the needs of states and the entire
country). Should not majority rule, and minority concessions also be a part of this process, if
this is to be a democratic process? In other words, the USA must listen to other countries, and must
compromise, if this is truly a democracy at the world level? Some people do not agree with this,
and they make that very vocally known, but they never explain this to me. To me, it is just
plain old confusing to hear every country should be a democracy, and the world should be more
democratic, but then state that the US should not listen to others, should not respect the
opinions and needs of others, should not compromise, and should in effect be a dictator to the
rest of the entire world, and a dictator as you know serves its own needs only and doesn't think
twice about anyone else (Kim Jung-il, Castro). This, to me, is not democratic, and so it gets very
confusing, to demand democracy but refuse to be democratic. Rather than be angry ("have my
shorts in a bunch", as they say), I'd rather hear someone give me a rational reasoning. I may not
agree, but at least I could understand. And I do present opinions in class that are different from
mine, and give the best reasoning that I can for those variant opinions. For every democratic
citizen must recognize that the first sign of a genuine democracy is a difference of opinion.
(You won't find that much in North Korea, right?) You could be one to help me here. I'm just lost.

I genuinely would like to know your view on this, for I just can't grasp the other side's opinion,
the side that says we want democracy, but we don't want democracy, on the world stage. On
the world stage, the US is the dictator, knows what is best for all and knows what is best all of the time
in every situation, and that only the opinion of the US matters, and that the opinions of the
billions of people who live everywhere else does not matter and should not be considered.
If you check with the U.S. Census Bureau here : http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
you will see that U.S. citizens comprise less than 5 % of the entire world population.
(U.S. population 306,225,200, world population 6,773,614,120). So please explain to me
how there is democracy in a situation where less than 5% of a population dictates to the
other 95% what is best. (Surely this is not because we have superior intelligence capabilities
so that we know what is going on when the rest of the world does not?? Our previous Presidential
administration repeatedly stated that our intelligence is extremely faulty.) I am not being
angry; I honestly want to understand this point of view. The world population numbers do not
support the notion that 100% implementation of US policy is a democratic process. Please tell me
either how this is democratic, or give me some other explanation. A democratic world that is
not democratic is just confusing.

As for traveling around the world, I would feel even more excited about going today than I was
in 2003. I feel safer in a world comprised of countries working together democratically, with mutual
respect, because these countries are listening to each other and working out compromises instead
of planning wars. God's children, His creation, is comprised of French and British and Ethiopians
and Iraqis and Iranians and Chinese and everyone else. He told me to love them. I try. I have had
friends from Ghana, Great Britain, France, Italy, Egypt, Togo and many other countries. I have yet
to meet a human being who was not created in God's image.

Thanks. Hope you can respond!
======================================
Here's the hate mail going about:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: London Newspaper - Obama Trip - A Brits view


Sad but true. With a “Leader” like Obama I shall not travel overseas.


Telegraph Blogs

Is it just me?
Gerald Warner
Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general. If it is an exaggeration to say that he believes the world has gone to the dogs, it is only a slight hyperbole.


Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block
Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 10, 2009 at 10:20:05

Posted in: Politics , Eagle Eye


President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.


Barack Obama in Prague on his astonishingly successful tour
Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets - suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner's nerves, what you will.
On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot - but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.
So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.
Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.
"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous.) "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)
President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.
Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

[ddeclue]

1. Helpful hint to would be R/W viral email writers:

Would you mind keeping it under 2000 words please?

Nobody's gonna read your crap anyways but I so lost interest in even skimming it to ridicule you when I got past the first 500 words.

:boring:

[pnwmom]

2. Coming from a group that loved to call Bush "Chimp,"

I just couldn't make myself read that whole thing.