I guess it is hard to forget the lesser of two evils remains evil.

Guys like Sistani, and groups like CAIR, should not be given any sort of preferential treatment by the media. There are Middle Easterners who believe in the new, and there are Muslims who believe in separation of church and state. We just never hear about them because they can't get the publicity...

Originally, Bush invaded a peaceful sovereign nation for the ostensible purpose of dethroning Hussein, because his WMDs posed a threat. Now, the ostensible purpose of the U.S. being in Iraq is to install democracy. Iraqis have now voted twice and chose a quasi-democratic, constitutional theocracy. Frankly, mission accomplished. It's now Iraqis responsibility to take hold of their own government.

The not-so-subtle clue that Iraq was destined to become a theocracy was the supernumerary addition of the office of "president" to the traditional parliamentary office of prime minister. Those of us who read the proposed constitution before its ratification raised concerns over this very unusual feature. What, we asked, was the purpose of two senior heads of State/government? And why was the president given veto power over parliament? And why was the president's function to guarantee Islamic precepts? The answer to these rhetorical questions was transparent: Iraq was to be a theocracy. The "president" was not a secular functionary, but a religious head of state. That mullahs would occupy the presidential office was also transparent.

Thus, I'd say "missions accomplished." The U.S. may have been too distracted or too oblivious not to raise concerns, but the Iraqis knew what they were after and instantiated it from the beginning. It's too late now to cry over spilled milk. Americans have died and been maimed in order for a democratic theocracy to replace an autocracy. Is the cost worth the result? I sure don't think so.

"Originally, Bush invaded a peaceful sovereign nation for the ostensible purpose of dethroning Hussein, because his WMDs posed a threat."

These aren't just lies, they are so easily debunked by a 5 minute search that they are more like religious recitations... articles of faith repeated over and over to reaffirm something the speaker HIMSELF knows is based only on faith... It gets so tiresome debunking them though...

I'm not sure if it takes more energy to refute them or if the liars just have more energy... for the record, there were MANY reasons for invading Iraq, and they were all mentioned previous to the invasion. For the record, Iraq was NOT "peaceful." For the record, dethroning Saddam Huseein was NEVER the sole purpose of the invasion... sigh...

It is becoming apparent that many in the "gay" community want to include the aversion to homosexuality among the sins of the Islamist. How telling. Well, I've got news for you, as a Christian, I too believe your lifestyle is a perversion! Do I want to see you killed? No. Put in jail? Yeah, maybe!!

Stop the pretense. We won't accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle -- ever!

He's(Sistani) medieval? And fundamentalist Islam is medieval? Why? Because they, like every major religion on the planet claim that homosexual acts are perverted and sinful and wrong?

Guess I'm medieval, too...ok, where did I leave that damned gauntlet?

I am no fan of Islam, and ascribe to the teachings that say "If there exists ONE muslim, there exists a terrorist." But...the teachings of this guys religion say that homosexuality is wrong, bad, etc.

MY religion has always taught that homosexuality is an abomination.

If we're medieval, then watch out. The homosexuals will soon find themselves floating in the moat.

Classic values? Classic ethnocentrism. It's laughable that a modern western-reared homosexual or someone sympathetic or tolerant to homosexual lifestyles would project his shallow indignation upon a man who comes from such a medievel culture as Iraq. Calling Sistani a homophobe (what a stupid word!)is like condemning pygmies for being short. To believe a guy like that has any enlightened choice in the matter is a real sign of classic ignorance.

Rather than defend what I didn't say, I'll repeat what I DID say -- that Sistani's view that homosexuals should be "killed in the worst manner possible" is medieval and despicably inhumane.

Perhaps the argument was not directed at me, but I fail utterly to see how my remarks about Sistani constitute an argument for "acceptance" of homosexuality.

In fact, I have repeatedly defend the right NOT to accept homosexuals. As I have said before in this blog,

"if homos make you sick, then by all means, go get sick! You have a constitutional right to be sickened by anything and everything which sickens you. Just don't get mad at me for not puking."

I would suggest, though that telling a total stranger that you'd put him in jail isn't persuasive of anything. It's simply an ad hominem attack and only invites the same thing in return. (Readers have as much right to advocate sending me to prison as I do to advocate sending them to prison.) I think it's a very strange way to make an argument, and is about as logical as telling someone he should be killed. But there's a right to tell someone he should be killed too. (Whatever floats your moat is fair game.)

Oh, that last comment. Not sure how to respond. Sistani a "homophobe"? I never said that. But if it's "ethnocentric" to disagree with Sistani's philosophy of killing homosexuals, then it would be ethnocentric to condemn honor killings and sexual mutilation of girls. Gotta disagree with you too.

Leave your ethnocentric so called Classical Values at home!
Next thing you're going to say that ALL humans are created equal or something! ALL people are NOT created equal. That idea is just another way the West tries to dominate other cultures. And expecting a man from the ME, especially an Arab or a Persian, for God's sakes! to be aware of concepts outside of the ME indicates that you are a racist bigot...

Alas! I can't leave my "ethnocentric so called Classical Values at home," because it is this blog's fate to be dragged into the homes of others. I have no defense against this involuntary invasion, and I know not whom to blame.

Let this be a lesson, Eric. Say something as controversial as "gay people shouldn't be murdered," and the wackos really come out of the woodwork. It depresses me that there are members of the American right who can find common ground with Sistani on this issue, but such is religious dogma.

Well, I'd rather have people honestly say what they think instead of feeling inhibited by the usual self-censorship that surrounds discussion of these issues.

(Obviously, that doesn't mean they're right or that I'll agree with them. And it doesn't excuse rudeness, or obligate me to reply in any way.)

Sometimes you're just too nice, Eric.
Oh well. Your blog, your rules.

I'm curious about a few things. I went over to Bear's blog and found an eclectic mix of flowers, poetry, and eastern mysticism. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between his comment above and the persona his blog presents. Perhaps the moat remark was a joke? I'd love to know for sure, cause the ambiguity is killing me.

Sadly,I have no such doubts about the unknown blowhard Christian. His position comes through loud and clear.

"Well, I've got news for you, as a Christian, I too believe your lifestyle is a perversion! Do I want to see you killed? No. Put in jail? Yeah, maybe!!"

Gosh, a real live Christian, right here at Classical Values! I hope he comes back and reads this. I'd like to ask him a few questions.

First, I'd like to know exactly how long he thinks gay people should be locked up for. Seriously. Forever? Twenty years? Some lesser time yet? How does he figure it? I just want a firm number.

Second, I'd like to know if his "Fudgepackers Behind Razorwire" initiative would involve all gays, or just the most egregious offenders among them. Is there some sort of threshold, a behavioral tripwire as it were, that triggers the Holy Inquisition? If so, what is it?

Third, I'd like to know why he doesn't favor the death penalty for such behavior. After all, it's right there in the bible. Kind of hard to wish it away. Therefore, I'd like to know how he rationalizes his way into disobeying God's Own Word. Doesn't striking off on his own like that sort of obviate the whole "God told me so" argument? I mean, once you start employing your own discretion in these matters, where do you stop?

Now, I've known a number of Christians in my time, and some of them are very fine people. They find this entire issue of sexual taboos to be trivial, a non-starter. Their basic opinion would be that honesty, generosity, and integrity are better indicators of character than where someone puts their naughty bits. If they can do it, Unknown Blowhard Christian might too.

An interesting point arises. U.B.C. says fags should be in jail. Most of the Christians I know find that attitude reprehensible. Yet both sides claim to be Christian, so I'm left with a dilemma. Which Christians should I take as doctrinally pure? Which Christians are the REAL Christians? Who decides such things?

I worked with a Cristian guy once, a young Reagan Republican type, who swore up and down that all Hindus were damned souls.

"All of them?" I asked.

"Yes, all of them."

And you know what? It didn't really bother him too damn much. He figured they had it coming. In my opinion, and please don't take umbrage, this is just a guess on my part, I don't think God sends little girls to hell. And I don't much care what the bible has to say about it. Young Reagan Republican, he had his faith to sustain him, insufferably.

Ironically, he was a Roman Catholic, and since then I have heard Evangelical Christians forcefully maintain that Roman Catholics are NOT real Cristians.

Hey, Unknown Christian? Try not to be a witless witness.

J. Case:

For the record I'm a real live Christian and I couldn't disagree more with Bear... what an asshat...

"Which Christians should I take as doctrinally pure? Which Christians are the REAL Christians? Who decides such things?"

It is such a huge question but one answer, MINE, is that the Bible is NOT the literal word of God- it is a bunch of writings by people who had mystical (mystical meaning they had encouters with God in this context) experiences and wrote them down.

This makes it pretty easy to bypass the stuff you don't like and stay with the central themes: Love thy neighbor, Christ loves you, Evil exists due to free will, stuff like that.

My understanding is that this form of Christianity has declined dramatically in the last hundred years- eaten up on one side by people who give up on religion and on the other by Evangelists...

Off topic but I've heard the Koran states that it IS written directly by Allah- Muhammed was illiterate- and that makes this kind of, well, rationalization I guess you could call it, much more difficult for a Muslim than a Christian.