From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 10:41:26 EST
>>George Soros ... is far more leveraged than any fundamentalist you have
mentioned (Putin just closed his office) >>
Somehow we continue to talk past one another. I really do not understand
what you mean in the above.
>>and the quote I offered was his accepting responsibility for wielding
his power, an act which seems not to have earned him any stock among his
peers as can be gleaned from a snip from the previously posted quote
below.>>
That part I do understand. I think I approve of Mr. Soros. But read on
(if you wish):
-------------------------
"Soros had said: “I'm also very concerned about my own role because the
new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world,” said Soros, whose
projects and funding have influenced governments and promoted various
political causes around the world. “As an unintended consequence of my
actions,” he said, “I also contribute to that image.”
After the conference, some Jewish leaders who heard about the speech
reacted angrily to Soros’ remarks. “Let’s understand things clearly:
Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; it’s caused by anti-Semites,” said
Elan Steinberg, senior advisor at the World Jewish Congress. “One can
certainly be critical of Bush policy or Sharon policy, but any deviation
from the understanding of the real cause of anti-Semitism is not merely a
disservice, but a historic lie.”
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called
Soros’ comments “absolutely obscene.”
------------------------
The text between the dashes is incomprehensible to me. My reading has
Soros saying one thing and Steinberg & Foxman criticizing him for
something else. I suspect that I am too ignorant of the issues here to
catch the flavor of the debate.
"And that argument among those Jewish VIPs contrasted sharply with a
Christian questioning the morality of another Christian who uses his
leverage to his advantage and perhaps to the advantage of other
Christians. >>
Oh. OK, I see your point. I think you missed mine, which I could have
worded a lot more carefully. Given that a person (need not be a Xtian)
has financial resources, is it moral to use those resources in promoting
a POV he feels is worth while. The clear answer is yes, it is moral to
do so. The question I am posing, however, is a bit different than that.
Are there ways of using those financial resources which are not moral?
Here the answer must be no, there are some ways to use those resources
(for example, hire a hit man to kill an opposer) which are not moral.
What Admanson, and, I think Coors, is doing is, I think, morally
questionable, for their funding goes, at least in part, to the creation
of "citizens groups," which tacitly imply, by their names, that they are
formed by groups of concerned people rather than by one person. That this
is a fine line, I concede. That it is a no-brainer (for either position),
I deny.
JB
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 11:07:58 EST