Jon Stewart on the Immense Range of Opinion

allowable in American political discourse when it comes to pre-emptive war on Iran:

It would appear that Jews have even infiltrated the International Jewish Conspiracy. Is there no end to their cunning? How will Bob Sungenis or Joe D’Hippolito (who are more alike than either realize) cope with the reality of Jews (indeed Israelis) who criticize Israel? Or with the reality that criticism of Israel and opposition to pre-emptive war does not constitute endorsement of Sungenis’ nutty, filthy, paranoid, and dangerous anti-semitism.

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    Sometimes it’s really hard not to despair at the ignorance of the electorate and the media. Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. And I’m not talking about ancient history or history from 100 years ago — though there is no lack of good examples. Look back 10 years. Have we learned nothing?

  • Puck

    I would agree that “Bob Sungenis or Joe D’Hippolito ” are alike in many ways. But I draw from that that there is not an “immense range of opinion” but instead not enough diversity of opinion. Furthermore I would suggest that the purpose of monotheism is to limit the range of opinion.

    • Mark Shea

      Yes. It’s almost impossible to tell Christians, Jews, and Muslims apart, not to mention the thousands of sects, sub-sects, sub-sub-sects and sub-sub-sub-sects of each branch. If you’ve seen one Abrahamic religion, you’ve seen ‘em all.

      *facepalm*

  • http://g Hezekiah Garrett

    Yes,Puck, it is, in much the same way the purpose of an internal combustion engine is to consume emmission sensors.

  • http://2catholicmen.blogspot.com/ Ben of the Two Men

    Analogies for pre-emptive war include me shooting you now because you have a gun and I have reason to believe you may shoot me later. This is wrong, but what if my intent is to only shoot your gun (or nuclear facility). Is this wrong? What say you?

    • http://7kids6dice1gamerdad.wordpress.com Raul

      I believe that the Church would be opposed to the destruction of personal property without the consent of the owner(s).

      • http://2catholicmen.blogspot.com/ Ben of the Two Men

        We would need to assume the owner of the “gun” would never consent.

    • Mark S (not for Shea)

      No. The current rationalization is like this:

      Evil Country X might someday make a gun with 1 bullet that they might use on Friendly Country Y. Maybe. We must therefore kill Evil Country X first.

      By and large, Pakistan is a far scarier and more unstable country than Iran, and they’ve had nukes for years.

  • Sean O

    Spot on Mark S. Pakistan is nearby and more unstable. I have been looking for someone to comment on that in the context of Iran.

  • John C

    Ah yes. . . . Jon Stewart. News and commentary for adolescents. Why do you post this clown?

    • Mark Shea

      Because he’s funny and has a point. Sorry if I upset you by using ritually impure sources.

  • Will

    You did not mention the gratuitous anti-Mormon sneer. After all, they are infidels who deserve it, and acceptance by roaring audiences of anti-religious sneers are nothing for US to worry about.

    • Mark Shea

      My apologies for not writing a post about every single detail of the video but only about the main point. I notice that in your remark above, you did not say a word about abortion, the injustice of the Dreyfus Affair, or the priest scandal. Why are you choosing to remain silent about these things, Will? What are you trying to cover up? Why are you so insensitive?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X