Comments on: Ahmadinejad in Christian lovefest

By: Not-my-real-name

Not-my-real-name — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:22:24 +0000

This is like being nice to Hitler. The same thing. The very same thing.

This was the error text I got when I clicked the first time. Hope it helps track down the problem.

Safari can’t open the page “http://www.yourish.com/wp-comments-post.php”. The error was: “lost network connection” (NSURLErrorDomain:-1005) Please choose Report Bug to Apple from the Safari menu, note the error number, and describe what you did before you saw this message.

By: Not-my-real-name

Not-my-real-name — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:16 +0000

This is like being nice to Hitler. The same thing. The very same thing.

By: Lefty

Lefty — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:08:57 +0000

I had no objection to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia, but this is different. What did the religious leaders hope to acheive with this meeting? Why ask him about the Holocaust yet again when there are more pressing issues?

Particularly crass was acceding to Ahmadinejad’s demand that no Bahais be present. Proceeding with the event anyway arguably legitimized religious discrimination. Had Ahmadinejad placed such a demand on Columbia University he’d have been told to take a hike. The religious leaders here should have done the same.

By: Damian P.

Damian P. — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:23:40 +0000

The Neturei Karta had their own meeting with Mad Mahmoud:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906911.html

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:45:45 +0000

The American Friends Service Committee and the World Council of Churches have long histories of apologetics for and enabling of totalitarians. During the Cold WAr they made propaganda for the Communists and the WCC financed Marxist guerillas. Their efforts for peace, so called, have always taken the form of opossing actions by free countries, especially the USA, in defense of freedom. Thus their attraction to the latest fashion in fascist tyranny is no surprise.

I’m surprised there were no Jewish religious leaders there. Usually you can count on at least somne Jews to buy the half-baked “peace” propaganda. Did all the Reconstructionist rabbis, like Michael Lerner, have previous engagements? And what about Netura Kartei? Surely they could have found some anti-Zionist maniacs to represent the original monotheistic faith, no matter how small their influence.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:07:09 +0000

It’s naive to think that “dialogue” is always the answer. If it’s a question of two sides acting in good faith, but coming from different perspectives, interests, and misunderstandings, then dialogue is indeed what’s called for.

Or if it’s a case where an agreement is of utmost urgency to both sides, then even dialogue between enemies can work. Look at the SALT talks between the US and the USSR.

But Ahmadinejad is another case altogether. There is no misunderstanding here, there are no shared interests or solutions that we can uncover by talking. The man wants what the man wants. And it’s not negotiable. He wants a nuclear weapon. Period. He wants more influence for Iran in the Middle East and the world. Period.

So, what is anyone going to talk about with him? What “concessions” could anyone make that would deter him from his political preferences? The answers: Nothing and none.

So, aside from the weather and the mysterious absence of gays in Iran, the conversation would offer…what?

Well, he’d go through his shtick about US policies that we have already heard from him a million times, and we’d recount all the objections to his policies and abuse of human rights that he’s already heard from us a million times. Then what? I guess a photo opportunity.

By: LarryConley

LarryConley — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:26:37 +0000

After reading this…

http://www.shiri.us/eng-main.html

I keep wondering at what point do we go Russian and put one through the back of the skull?

By: david foster

david foster — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:57:09 +0000

Similar irresponsible naivite has been shown before by members of the clergy.

By: Ryan Frank

Ryan Frank — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:01:07 +0000

Ugh, a Jesuit should know better than this. Minor nitpick… Catholic clergy are not addressed as ‘Reverend’ although why am I not shocked the NYT can’t keep that straight.

By: John M.

John M. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:27:22 +0000

Meryl,

On behalf of the Christians in the world who are NOT liberal numskulls, I apologize for the participation of these leaders in this charade.