Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
People of the year
Time magazine’s big reveal today of its 2008 Person of the Year was perhaps one of the most anticlimactic in recent years considering President-elect Barack Obama was a shoo-in for the title. Runners-up included Henry Paulson, Sarah Palin, Michael Phelps, Hillary Clinton, Tina Fey, and Rick Warren.
Here at WORLD we have the annual Daniel of Year, and this year the title went to Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest who takes to the airwaves and the Internet to confront Islam. Be sure to check out his full story here.
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: barack-obama, Person of the Year 2008, Time Magazine, WORLD's Daniel of the Year 2008, Zakaria Botros
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top32 Comments to “People of the year”
Giving awards to people who attack one religion on behalf of another is not helpful in today’s world.
And for Christian bible believers to call into question another holy book’s position on child sex, child marriage, and women’s rights is completely laughable.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, only Christians are laughable, but everyone else in the entire world is perfectly logical. Whatever.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, did you read World’s article on Zakaria Botros? Whether or not you agree with the choice, it seems clear that Mr. Botros is acting in a spirit of love and not “attack”.
What do you find distressing about the Bible writers’ positions on child sex, child marriage and women’s rights? Even among non-Christians Jesus is pretty well-known as a radical supporter of women and children and their “rights”. Of course not all self-proclaimed Christians are very good Christ-followers, so to be fair to yourself I hope you check out some of the New Testament books on your own, if you haven’t already.
Report comment to moderator
#1 Arcadia
Spoken like a true non-believer.
I am not sure just what you mean about the Bible and child sex, child marriage, and women’s rights. Is there something you know that I don’t? Please expound about it.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
In general, I don’t think much of “attacking” other people’s religions. But I see nothing wrong with giving information out about why I think people are being deceived by their beliefs. People here do it all the time with Christianity, presumably because they don’t want to see other people trapped in superstition and hurtful attitudes.
Christians in our society have lots of opportunties to hear or read reasons to question what they believe in. Muslims in Muslim countries generally do not. Botros is giving them that opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Pauline. You ARE a good writer.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve asked this before.
Someone please tell me why Tina Fey was in the running for Person of the Year.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Graceland
“Someone please tell me why Tina Fey was in the running for Person of the Year.”
Because Time magazine is like “the Missouri River, a mile wide and an inch deep.”
Report comment to moderator
“People here do it all the time with Christianity, presumably because they don’t want to see other people trapped in superstition and hurtful attitudes.”
This bears repeating… Too many times the liberals on this blog don’t see that they are doing the exact same thing they accuse us of doing – in the name of “neutrality” and “objectivity”.
Report comment to moderator
… [ahem] ronpaul [ahem] …
Report comment to moderator
Ah so many confoundments, so little time.
As I read Arcadia’s post she is asserting two things:
1) inter-religious attacks (if you are going to challenge Aracadia, I suggest it is in not characterizing the type of attacks) are not useful
2) for Christians to criticize another religions beliefs on “child sex, child marriage, and women’s rights ” is perhaps a bit hypocritical given Christianity’s sometimes unusual positions here
The first requires clarification on the type of attacks, but has been shown historically to not lead to generaly useful outcomes. The second is a classic mote in thine own eye problem.
To then attack Arcadia and liberals for attacking Christinaity in this blog based on this argument, I suggest is a most amusing turn of argument.
So lets consider: when the Christians on this blog no longer use the words heretic and make assertions of going to hell to other Christian’s for their beliefs as expressed here, then I can begin to grant that maybe the Christians on this blog (of which I am one) deserve not receiving some of the challenges. But all too often the Christians on this blog clearly demonstrate in their treatment of other Christians how they expect they should be treated.
But to continue this blog is explicitly designed to foster such challenges: it follows the debate is a contact sport rule and all topics (within certain limits of good taste) are pretty much fair game. Since Christains are happy to comment negatively about non-believers, it follows nicely that turn about is appropriate.
And further, again within the basic guidelines of this blog, if the argument is not consistent (and much of the argument both Christian and non-Christian is not), that is a valid topic for discussion. Which of course brings Arcadia’s point 2 back into perspective.
But arguing that vigorous debate in this blog justifies extension of the debate as contact sport to continuing direct challenge of Islam over the air waves in a Moslem country, would appear to be quite a stretch.
So far I suggest that Pauline is the only one who has come close to a supporting argument here, but I suggest that even Pauline’s argument needs to expand on how this type of broadcast is going to achieve any of the true religious or foreign policy objectives one might be interested in achieving UNLESS one is specficialy interested as a policy decision in fostering ill will.
If fostering ill will by these broadcasts is indeed one’s policy here, it is probably useful if one admits it up front.
Report comment to moderator
TIME has previously featured Ayatollah Khomeini, Adolf Hitler and lotsa other folks.
But Barack’s selection does seem a bit underwhelming
Report comment to moderator
Being picked “person of the year” by Time is more or less equivalent to being elected Vice-President of one’s junior class in high school.
OK, that’s not respectful enough. Vice-President of one’s Sophomore Class in college.
Report comment to moderator
#11 Musing
I guess today is our day to butt heads. I asked Arcadia to give examples of problems. “I am not sure just what you mean about the Bible and child sex, child marriage, and women’s rights.”
I can only think about Paul not wanting women to teach. That is pretty thin gruel.
I do admit to often having trouble getting your meaning. Is it me?
Report comment to moderator
TIME’s managing editor said they considered making Obama voters the person of the year.
“We thought about possibly giving it to the American voter for electing Barack Obama,” he said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1208/Obama_named_Times_Person_of_the_Year.html
Report comment to moderator
#15 Emily Belz
Now that is stupid.
Report comment to moderator
Emily – 15
“We thought about possibly giving it to the American voter for electing Barack Obama,”
This sort of dumb comment shouldn’t surprise anyone coming from that group! What would you expect?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, Victoria. I saw a comment by you yesterday that I agree with. I thought that maybe today I might see another sensible comment that wasn’t a “dumb comment.”
Why should I expect that?
Report comment to moderator
#9 Too many times the liberals on this blog don’t see that they are doing the exact same thing they accuse us of doing – in the name of “neutrality” and “objectivity”.
1. I am not a “liberal” or a “conservative,” though if it makes you happy to call me a liberal as an insult or attack, feel free.
2. I am not neutral. I am not objective.
3. I in agreement for the most part with Musing’s comment.
4. It is a characteristic of the conservative Christians here to perceive their communication with others differently than others perceive them.
For example, people post messages that appear as “attacks” to the person who reads it, but not to the person who posted it. [gaying the thread alert] When Christians make statements about homosexuals, homosexuals perceive it as being attacked. Many Christians retort that they are expressing God’s judgment and will, and they (the Christians) love homosexuals but they are condemning the behavior, not the homosexuals. The homosexuals do not perceive it that way. When the homosexuals respond sharply, the Christians perceive themselves as being attacked.
If all the “gay wars” messages I’ve read on wmb were laid in a line…well, never mind, that’s not appropriate for a semi-family blog, but the argument is endless and changes little. It applies to many discussions here, including the ones on “liberals” and “conservatives.”
Botros said [in linked article]
“My program is to attack Islam, not to attack Muslims but to save them because they are deceived. As I love Muslims, I hate Islam.”
I am not a Muslim, and I have no agenda to defend Islam. I am also a strong defender of free speech. I will say I know some Muslims who don’t attack me (some of them know I have Jewish ancestors and don’t get excited about it). They probably don’t feel any more loved by Botros’ statements than homosexuals feel loved by the comments they read here.
The point is that we live in a difficult world full of troublesome moral, philosophical, and political issues. Free speech and tolerance are uneasy bedfellows. If you are sure you know what God wants and has to say to us through the Bible, you are going to run into quite a few people who 1) beg to differ and 2) are not going to like you very much. You have every right to whine about how unfair #2 is while snarling, I don’t care what you think of me anyway because God knows I am correct.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 14,
well it would depend on ones position regarding the Old Testament would it not?
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 14,
I do find that the apparent clarity of my meaning to a person seems to depend on how strongly one agrees/disagrees with me.
Report comment to moderator
#20 & 21 Musing
My agreement/disagreement don’t have much to do with your meaning.
i often have to puzzle over your lack of capitalization an punctuation. I lose meaning when I have to stop, figure out what you left out, and reread it the way it should be. That is on you. Is it an attitude problem on your part or don’t you know any better?
Either way, do it correctly and I will understand you more easily.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.” You are not often funny.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Bucklesd post 22,
hmnm,as I look at your arguments in this thread and the whirled views 1217 thread, it would seem that your attestation here is not supported by your actual behavior.
You seem to understand the parts where you want to violently disagree with me quite well, although you arguably mischaraterize my position.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles,
for example in whirled views 1217, you indeed captured my point on lack of resources for individualized instruction and expanded on it quite eloquently. You appeared to insist I disagree with you, where a rereading would hyave shown that i did not. I thinbk in view of yor posts so fasr, you understood my point just fine.
You also in post 70 of the same thread extracted manhy of my key independent ponts quite well. Again it appear you are understanding what I am saying.
What was interesting is you appear to have confounded two separate arguments, and misconstructed the logical development I was presenting.
So you appear to understand each of my points. You appear not to follow the logical development of these points.
Given that the confoundment in particular was in two clearly separated set of posts, I am finding it difficult to consider that the inability to keep the logic striaght is a difficulty in development on my end.
Report comment to moderator
#11 Musing
#24 Musing
In both these posts you complain about someone else’s logic.
Since your logic is impeccable, I quit. You win. I leave the field of logic to you. You know it all. Everyone else knows nothing.
Good Night
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buickles post 25,
since the test of logic is whether errors in the inference chain can be established, and you have granted you can find none in mine, then I will accept your conclusion on the point.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, it’s not only Mr. Buckles. Half the time, I can’t understand where you’re going with things either. Perhaps you would do well to brush up on your use of logic, as I would do well to brush up on mine, so we can understand each other. For the record, though, clarity would be easier to attain on your part with a little more in the punctuation area.
Report comment to moderator
I believe Arcadia is speaking of the tendancy in Old Testament for older men to marry teenage and younger girls. Arcadia, back then kids were considered adults when they were twelve. The teenager is an invention of the culture of the 1920’s, and considering the fact that I am physically mature, I would probably have been married by now if I lived even 100 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest who takes to the airwaves and the Internet to confront Islam.
Arcadia apparently didn’t read the article. Botros confronts Islam, not by attacking, but by pointing out contradictions in their religion and leading them to Christ.
I realize that Arcadia was not really commenting on this topic at all, rather it was just one more opportunity to fulfill Arcadia’s entire purpose here which is to bash Christians and scream at God.
The clash between Islam and civilization is a clash of world views. Is it not better to confront violent ideologies with words rather than weapons? Anyone who does not confront Islam with words, will be forced to do so with weapons.
Report comment to moderator
opinioonated teen post 27,
and again I ask what the root of the problem is? Im the case of Bob Buckles we have demonstrated that he was capable of extracting the key points I had made and in the main echoing them back approxcimately correctly.
It would seem then that Bob Buckles was having trouble with my logical development, as evidenced my his incorrect assertion sof what I meant by the logical development (odd given that he confounded two separate arguments).
When I have trouble with the logical development of a poster I practice what is sometimes termed active listening: I echo back what I believe the poster has said and ask specifically if I have gotten it right.
Have you seen Bob Buckles make such an attempt?
I believe I can then rest my case: it would perhaps be impolite to drive the argument further on this point uless you or Bub Buckles insist.
Report comment to moderator
opinionated teen,
I am reminded of a logical presentation course which I attended. There were two of use with research backgrounds. The three day course was basically pretty simple attempting to suggest (quite reasonably) that presentations should proceed as follow:
A => B
B => C
Therefore A => C
Both the research members argued that this as a very simplistic and limited set of logical developments.
In the WMB framework there are sets of arguably more effective developments that simple deductive logicm since pure deductive logic tends to drive the “Is so, Is not,” silliness.
One approach when people make illogical assertions is reductio ad absurdum. One simply continues the logical development showing that the argument is non-sense since it reults in non-sensical or contradcitory results (see discussion on worry and its Biblical meaning perhaps).
A second approach effective when the opponent makes categorical statements is boundary analysis. In almost all cases the results on the far boundaries of logical possiblities are nonsense, so when someone says “all …” certain boundary analyses can be useful.
A third approach is to ascertain those areas where you opponent believe you poiont perhaps more strongly than you do, and let them make the argument for you, perhaps by exploring the contradictory possibliites. Tychicus did this nicely for me in the discussion on worry.
Many claim that my arguments are wrong, silly, or obtuse.
It would appear, however, if you look over WMB for several years that Lynn’s discipline on attacking the post, not the poster, combined with a number of individuals who use in some cases more complex loigic approachs, that the nature of the discussions in WMB has significantly changed.
While I have only been present (all that can be proved) during part of this change, I believe this is worth considering in making your critiques regarding my posts.
Report comment to moderator
opinionated teen post 28,
you comment:
“I believe Arcadia is speaking of the tendancy in Old Testament for older men to marry teenage and younger girls. Arcadia, back then kids were considered adults when they were twelve. The teenager is an invention of the culture of the 1920’s, and considering the fact that I am physically mature, I would probably have been married by now if I lived even 100 years ago. ”
is indeed quite valid.
But are we in general enjoined to use the examples of the Bible in establishing how we live our lives?
And were not these examples of how revered and honored men (Abraham for example) lived and honored God? (Tell me about Hagar?
) (yes and there is perhaps a subtle error ther. 
).
And comments on the geneology of what is recorded as one of God’s most favored Kings of Israel?
And think about my comments in post 31.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!