Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on March 02, 2006, 04:48:21 PM
-
I know I'm probably going to get grief for posting this, but it's certainly worth noting. While I don't agree with every part of the Manifesto, it represents the efforts of 12 internationally prominent writers (including Salman Rushdie) to draw attention to what they believe to be the new* totalitarian global threat as they put it:
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism (http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/)
- SEAGOON
* At almost 1400 years old, I'd hardly call the threat "new" but, eh.
-
I think the fact that some people here scrutinize everything you say because you are a preacher is asnine goon. I really do.
I really don't know anyone in the free world that couldn't get behind the very first statement
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
There's not much else written there that isn't too hard to get behind either. I read this a week ago but was too lazy to post it, thanks.
-
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
I can dig it.
Which part(s) do you disagree, Seagoon?
-
oh boy, the fatwas are gonna be a-flyin...
-
Originally posted by Octavius
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
I can dig it.
Which part(s) do you disagree, Seagoon?
Hi Octavius,
Not much, I had to say that though so some of the guys on the board would be able to support it. ;)
Actually, I'm ok with all the pronouncements except for the idea expressed at the end of the first paragraph that our salvation from Islamism will be found in secular values for all. The solution being proposed to the threat by humanists is predictably, humanism. I don't agree. If I did, I wouldn't be an evangelical Pastor.
- SEAGOON
-
So you don't agree with the conclusion of the manifesto but you agree with the rest of it.
In your opinion what is the solution to islamism then ?
BTW how did you find out that the authors are all humanists and not deistic?
-
i'll see your fatwas and raise you 2 jehads.
-
Western fundamentalism vs Eastern fundamentalism is still fundamentalism.
Sane people: reject these cartoon warz.
Please.
-
are you serious? be critical of any dogmas regardless of continent... how can anyone disagree with that?
that is claiming zero side, zero dogmas, zero ignorance. learn both sides, learn both hypocrisies, choose whatever you will or none at all.
again, i dig.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
are you serious? be critical of any dogmas regardless of continent... how can anyone disagree with that?
My dogma requires that I must vehemently disagree with you.
-
Hi Suave,
Originally posted by Suave
So you don't agree with the conclusion of the manifesto but you agree with the rest of it.
In your opinion what is the solution to islamism then ?
BTW how did you find out that the authors are all humanists and not deistic?
You know to this day, I'm not quite sure why I answer these questions. I post something about a group of non-religious Europeans calling people to oppose Islamism, and which I am almost in full agreement with, and as usual within a few posts its all about how stupid orthodox Christianity (and my belief in it) is. It'd be quicker to just start a thread entitled "kick me."
Anyway, Suave, I agree with their assessment of the problem, I just happen to believe you aren't going to overcome Islam with the same secular humanism that European Muslims are rejecting. I strongly believe that the only thing that can pierce and overcome the darkness of Islam, is the light of the Gospel. The reason I am not ashamed to say that is for the same reason that Paul stated so long ago: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" I fully recognize that neither you nor the authors of the Manifesto would agree with that, I also know that many members of the BB can't see the difference between that statement and carrying a placard stating "Behead all who slander Islam" and flying aircraft into buildings, so there is no need to remind me.
I know the authors are mostly committed Secular Humanists, because I've read several of them, either in books or interviews, in particular Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq. And for the others, their own descriptions give you enough information to figure out their religious persuasions for instance Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society's Secularist of the Year award. Most of them are left-wing and all are committed to secularism as a philosophy.
And Nash, how on earth are the authors of the Manifesto Western Fundamentalists???
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
And Nash, how on earth are the authors of the Manifesto Western Fundamentalists???
- SEAGOON
Well maybe they aren't, but you sure as hell are.
Let me give you an example:
"I strongly believe that the only thing that can pierce and overcome the darkness of Islam, is the light of the Gospel."
whereas THEY say:
"I strongly believe that the only thing that can pierce and overcome the darkness of the Gospel, is the light of Islam."
What exactly is the difference between y'all?
It's all about darkeness and peircing and war and end times with you guys.
Ya know what? That crap aint working for the "*******s" and it SURE as hell aint working for anyone here. So maybe it's high time that you back the eff out of international politics and start talking about peace and love et al, like yer supposed to, and quit pressuring brain dead leaders into stepping into quagmires based on your particular version of a particular book of a particular religeon.
Or whatever.
They are fundamentalists, and you are fundamentalists, and fundamentalists bring nuthin' but hurt.
-
So... time to end this silly war on terror and get to the real problem.
Islamism.
or
Fundamentalism.
Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people. - Ferris Bueller
-
seagoons right... this is an eastern vs western religious dogma dillema that has the potential to erupt in to WWIII.
who coulda seen it coming?
:old rolleyes:
-
After a thousand years, one could have hoped that we would have got past the crusades.
Pity.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
So... time to end this silly war on terror and get to the real problem.
Islamism.
or
Fundamentalism.
Try:
"Fundamentalislamacist."
Ooooh. Sounds like 'mullah in a brown shirt'. Evokes all kindsa negativity.
Somebody call Colbert.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
After a thousand years, one could have hoped that we would have got past the crusades.
Pity.
Hell.. all that's missing is a resurgence of the plauge.
" ...the........ plauge....... *gasp* .... plauge...."
-
The only -ism I'm happily following is capitalism :)
-
hedonism is big around here.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
The only -ism I'm happily following is capitalism :)
Über capitalism is another form of fundamentalism, it is the tyranny of money. Free market is good IMO but I believe that pure speculation is a big hinderance to development.
Originally posted by Seagoon
I strongly believe that the only thing that can pierce and overcome the darkness of Islam, is the light of the Gospel.
You're trying to cure burn wounds with acid.
-
Hmmmm...................
I see a BIG difference between East and West.
Or maybe I should say Islam and Christian.
Islam says ALL WILL believe as they are told or ELSE! ALL WILL worship as they are told or ELSE!
Christianity does not REQUIRE this? At times in history it has been pushed very strongly at others, which IMHO is very wrong, and there have been wars over it. Which IMHO is also very wrong. In America if memory serves me correctly Christianity has never been required of the population.
The seeming hatered I've seen on this board for those of the Christian faith puzzles me. I don't understand it I guess.
Would someone care to explain this reaction? Is it emotional? On what is it based?
-
maybe it's just me nash but looking at muslim countries and then looking at christian ones....
I seem to be able to make a pretty sharp comparisson between the two brands of fundamentalism. I think I will worry much less about the the mormon kids in white shirt and tie at the door.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
The only -ism I'm happily following is capitalism :)
but france is a socialst country!!!
-
You know to this day, I'm not quite sure why I answer these questions. I post something about a group of non-religious Europeans calling people to oppose Islamism, and which I am almost in full agreement with, and as usual within a few posts its all about how stupid orthodox Christianity (and my belief in it) is. It'd be quicker to just start a thread entitled "kick me."
Just dont pay attention to those who are starting to say you hate things non-Christian, or those you just say you hate. Pay no mind to those folks my friend. Some of us DO understand where you are coming from. I for one do appreciate your posts. :)
-
Nash,
Originally posted by Nash
Well maybe they aren't, but you sure as hell are.
Let me give you an example:
"I strongly believe that the only thing that can pierce and overcome the darkness of Islam, is the light of the Gospel."
whereas THEY say:
"I strongly believe that the only thing that can pierce and overcome the darkness of the Gospel, is the light of Islam."
What exactly is the difference between y'all?
It's all about darkeness and peircing and war and end times with you guys.
Ya know what? That crap aint working for the "*******s" and it SURE as hell aint working for anyone here. So maybe it's high time that you back the eff out of international politics and start talking about peace and love et al, like yer supposed to, and quit pressuring brain dead leaders into stepping into quagmires based on your particular version of a particular book of a particular religeon.
What's the difference? Well let's see, the Christian missionaries I know, don't have petrodollars bankrolling them, they have to raise their own pitiful support household by household and church by church, it's usually young couples, often with kids. They do things like go into areas like Aceh and help Muslims to remove thousands of rotting corpses from their beaches, or into Kashmir to provide relief to people who have lost everything to earthquakes or into the Amazon to provide medical relief to peoples who have never had any healthcare at all. As they go they build schools and churches and they preach the good news. They don't force people to listen, neither do they require that people become "Westernized" first, nor do they even condition the material help they offer on a person accepting the gospel.
What don't they do? They don't tell women they must remain covered head to foot in cloth and only go outside if accompanied by their nearest male relative. They don't tell people that women are the equivalent of cattle and should not be educated.They don't teach men to take multiple wives or to beat them when they are disobedient. They don't tell people you get into heaven by dying in a holy war or through your own works, rather they tell people that heaven is a free gift given by a merciful God to all those who will believe in His Son, who died for them. They don't teach people to kill those who apostatize, or to stone adulterers. Unlike the Madrassas in many areas, they don't split their instruction between weapons training and religious instruction. And they don't foster terrorist cells in their midst.
They go out, spreading the message of peace between God and man through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1), not via the use of the AK47, or Sharia law, or suicide bombings, or dhimmitude and social and economic stigma, or molotov cocktails, and without compulsion. The only compulsion they use is that which the Holy Spirit brings to bear on the hearts of men. The fruits of that work that I have actually seen are that where there was once oppression and guilt and misery there is now love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. I say that not only having observed it in others who were converted from Islam, but in my own experience, being a convert from darkness myself - I know experimentally what the Psalmist meant when he said, "Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!" I fear that without that experience, all the rhetoric in the world on my part is not going to persuade you of the night and day difference between the Jihadi and the Missionary.
As for the "political" side you mention, and pressuring "brain-dead" political leaders, I don't even know how to really respond. I don't personally have any involvement in politics, and our church has zero political activity. We don't invite political leaders to speak, do election day sermons, voter drives, or hand out voters guides. And I certainly do not preach partisan politics from the pulpit, as always you are free to check the veracity of that statement at: http://providencepca.sermonaudio.com
If you want a simple, real-world introduction though to the stark difference between the world view of Christian Missionaries and the Jihadis, I would recommend you pick up a copy of In the Presence of My Enemies (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0842362398/qid=1141421030/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-0475972-0174300?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), the story of Martin and Gracia Burnham, missionaries to the Phillipines who spent over a year as captives of Abu Sayyaf (only Gracia survived.) The title of the book is of course taken from Psalm 23:5.
The picture below is one taken during their captivity, (in case there are problems telling the difference the Jihadis are the guys in the background.)
(http://www.christianity.ca/mission/global/2004/images/05.000b.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
maybe it's just me nash but looking at muslim countries and then looking at christian ones....
I seem to be able to make a pretty sharp comparisson between the two brands of fundamentalism. I think I will worry much less about the the mormon kids in white shirt and tie at the door.
lazs
Very true!
-
The History Channel had a "Decoding The past" thing on the Koran (sp?) last night. I only caught the tail end of it, maybe it will be on again. Anyways, they made a comment that made me raise an eyebrowe...that perhaps the religon of Islam is going through the "growing pains" that the Christian religion went thru hundreds of years ago.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
What's the difference?
This week alone produced, in quick succession, a bill to ban abortion in Mississippi...
The Supreme Court ruling that allows anti-choice goons to terrorize girls when they visit their doctors...
A love letter from new SC justice Alito to Dobson...
South Dakota's bill to ban abortion including pregnancies resulting from rape and incest...
Domino's Pizza founder and devout Catholic Tom Monaghan's official breaking ground and building an entirely new town giving complete control of its denizen's to him - based on his strict interpretation of Catholism - where, amongst other restrictions, pharmacies aren't even allowed to carry contraceptives...
Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considering a bill that would name Christianity as the state's official "majority" religion, recognizing "a Christian god," and the protecting of the "majority's" right to express their religious beliefs without similar protections of any other religion, saying that "a greater power exists," yet only Christianity receives (in its own words) "justified recognition"....
Walmart finally buckling and agreeing to stock the morning after pill despite the initial heavy Christopath protesting and Walmart's initial acquiescence to them.
Just this week. Alone.
Ya know what? If I was a chick, I'd make a personal policy and tell all of my friends to just quit ****ing you guys. No protection against pregnancy, no protection against STD's, no protection in the event of any accident means no sex for you bozos... whatsoever... and you don't even have porn to fall back on. Then brace yourself against the gale force winds caused by the shuffling of papers that would see these laws redacted faster than you could say I-haven't-been-laid-in-eight-months.
Anyways....
In my remarks to you, Seagoon, I say "You".... but I'm not talking about you personally. I admit that it can easily come across that way. That's my bad. When I say "You" I am speaking about all that "You" represent. I trust that you don't bring politics into your sermons, but collectively, "You" are being investigated by the IRS on a massive scale for the rampant violations of campaign laws. "You," it's widely accepted, were responsible for putting Bush over the top in 2004. "You" are the reason that Bush diverted his plane from yet another vacation in order to legislate the sad and otherwise intimate death of a Florida woman, and "You" strong-arm this administration with great success in matters of war and domestic policy.
"You" are more a part of the equation that is Government and governance today than has ever, EVER been the case since America's rejection of Theocracy and Monarchy oh so long ago, which by the way, was the very basis upon which America was founded.
It matters not that you distance yourself from your compadres when it comes to policy. Preach it or not, you are a part of it, and support it. I dare you to tell me otherwise with respect to any of these issues.
And despite your attempt to distance yourself from the world's other fundamentalists, at the heart of it, it all comes down to one single thing. The control of other people based on your personal beliefs. Eastern fundamentalists want the same things as you, even though you might squabble over the margins.
I'll make this easy.
I don't want any government or any institution to have any control over mine nor anyone's personal behavior so long as that behavior doesn't bring harm to someone else's right to same.
Guys like me? It's not complicated. We like: “…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” Not much to it.
But whoah boy - that's a little too fast and loose for the Fundamentalists. Both "you" and "them."
You folks have more in common than you think.
-
RUN FOR THE HILLS NASH THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING.....THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING. THEY MIGHT HIT YOU WITH A BIBLE AND THEN YOU ARE SCREWED!
-
Nash is just dark-sided!
Rebuke him!;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
RUN FOR THE HILLS NASH THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING.....THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING. THEY MIGHT HIT YOU WITH A BIBLE AND THEN YOU ARE SCREWED!
I whither under such lame sarcasm.
-
But what will Nash be saying when his grandchildren have to pray 5 times a day and his granddaughters are sold as wives to a person they have never met ?
Nash, don't think that thats not the long term plan of the islamic fundamentilists.
O and BTW, as of now they are winning because the attitude and ignorance of people such as you.
Not meant to be a flame, just a simple statement of a fact that the majority of non-muslims refuse to accept.
-
Originally posted by Flit
But what will Nash be saying when his grandchildren have to pray 5 times a day and his granddaughters are sold as wives to a person they have never met ?
Nash, don't think that thats not the long term plan of the islamic fundamentilists.
Yeah.... that would suck. Horrible to imagine.
Every bit as much as it would suck to imagine my daughters dressed up in a Christian facade which leaves them powerless and controlled by the whims of a decrepit ideology.
My daughters.... they get the right to live life on their own terms. They explore, examine, screw up, adjust, screw up again. Live, learn, and be free.
Look at your post. You are completely agreeing that this is a war of Fundamentalism. I don't give a damn who wins. It's ultimately the same thing. And sad.
-
Originally posted by Flit
have to pray 5 times a day
not gonna happen
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah.... that would suck. Horrible to imagine.
Every bit as much as it would suck to imagine my daughters dressed up in a Christian facade which leaves them powerless and controlled by the whims of a decrepit ideology.
My daughters.... they get the right to live life on their own terms. They explore, examine, screw up, adjust, screw up again. Live, learn, and be free.
Look at your post. You are completely agreeing that this is a war of Fundamentalism. I don't give a damn who wins. It's ultimately the same thing. And sad.
The diffrence being that as a christian fundimentilist, you a have a choice to be one or not. They will be able to Choose.
Thats not an option with the muslims
The only choice you have is too "convert" or either die and/or be treated as a animal.
-
Oh come on.
"you a have a choice to be one or not."
Sure.
Yet, so-called "free will" don't make a gawdamned bit of difference to you.
If society's free will conspires against you, you'll just twist arms in order to pass laws making free will much less free.
Choice?
Give me one mother of a ****ing break.
-
Nash,
Just a few quick points, as I'm sick as dog, and don't have time for a fuller reply.
1) You seem to be entirely unacquainted with an old fashioned institution called marriage and these little things we call children. Believe it or not it is possible to meet a girl, fall in love, get married, remain faithful, and then actually raise the offspring your lovemaking produces rather than exterminating them in utero. Not only that you actually produce something called a family which is the fundamental building block of society.
2) When I say "You" from now on, do "you" mind if I fold you in with everyone from Leon Trotsky to the Unibomber? I mean "you're" all basically godless lefties right? You all have the same objectives, the same outlook, and the same violent tendencies and so on right?
Get the point?
3) You believe I am somehow a danger to the Republic and to Liberty. And yet the majority of Colonels in the Colonial Army that secured the independence of this nation were Presbyterian elders like myself. The Constitution whose preamble you quoted from, was signed by Presbyterian pastor John Witherspoon, indeed he was perhaps one of the greatest influences on its author James Madison, having taught him in University. Witherspoon and I do not differ in the slightest theologically. Some of my favorite sermons are contained in his collected works which are sitting behind me on the bookshelf. Apparently though, you disagree with Witherspoon's assessment that "It is the man of piety and inward principal that we may be expected to find the uncorrupted patriot."
4) Finally, please consider this, if you consider nothing else I have written: I am not consumed with hatred and rage.
- SEAGOON
-
So basically Seagoon it boils down to:
"that's some cool stuff. I just wish they dinnae lump me and mine into that category of people they're against".
Nash has some good points abpout why that likely has happened.
Theocracies have a horrible history of repression, with the repression being based on dogma and directly related to belief. It is the core justifications for restrictions and punishments.
Repression in non theocracies tend to be done for real-politik reasons. The justification is: I do it because I can and until I can't.
On the whole, democracies are very new. Theocracies are very old. There's been one spectacular failure of a democracy (of course that democracy was turned into a dictatorship before that happened, but nevertheless). There's been countless examples of theocrats with Good Intentions causing massive destruction.
If you ask me, secularism in terms of governance is the way to go. Religion should have no say whatsoever there - even though theocrats believe morals can only come from the divine - that is a statement of faith.
You, as a Christian, also ought to support this. You as a pastor know that there is the kingdom of earth and the kingdom of heaven. God will judge us. And he ain't gonna need your help on that.
If you now respond by posting lots of biblical links showing how you're instructed by God to interfere with earthly affairs my own personal opinion on religion is likely to be a little more towards "that's a dangerous slippery slope dude" than "hey, faith is nice".
Personal faith is teh best evah, maybe. Mass organised into political will, driven by zealots and you have Jihad and Crusades.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Nash,
Just a few quick points, as I'm sick as dog, and don't have time for a fuller reply.
1) You seem to be entirely unacquainted with an old fashioned institution called marriage and these little things we call children. Believe it or not it is possible to meet a girl, fall in love, get married, remain faithful, and then actually raise the offspring your lovemaking produces rather than exterminating them in utero. Not only that you actually produce something called a family which is the fundamental building block of society.
2) When I say "You" from now on, do "you" mind if I fold you in with everyone from Leon Trotsky to the Unibomber? I mean "you're" all basically godless lefties right? You all have the same objectives, the same outlook, and the same violent tendencies and so on right?
Get the point?
3) You believe I am somehow a danger to the Republic and to Liberty. And yet the majority of Colonels in the Colonial Army that secured the independence of this nation were Presbyterian elders like myself. The Constitution whose preamble you quoted from, was signed by Presbyterian pastor John Witherspoon, indeed he was perhaps one of the greatest influences on its author James Madison, having taught him in University. Witherspoon and I do not differ in the slightest theologically. Some of my favorite sermons are contained in his collected works which are sitting behind me on the bookshelf. Apparently though, you disagree with Witherspoon's assessment that "It is the man of piety and inward principal that we may be expected to find the uncorrupted patriot."
4) Finally, please consider this, if you consider nothing else I have written: I am not consumed with hatred and rage.
- SEAGOON
Briefly...
In response to 1)
Yeah marriage is good. Why not? But lets never forget that all it is and ever will be (and should be) is ultimately a pact between two people who love eachother... and outside of those two people, no matter who they are, we would be presumptious dicks for judging that union. You and I have no right to interject ourselves into it. What would even make you think that this somehow falls under your self important purview? Your Judgement?
Balls to your judjement. Balls to your approval or oversight.
Freedom to love whom we do.
So back off.
In response to 2)
I gave you several examples/reasons as to why I equate "you" with fundamentalists. If all you can come back with is a weak attempt to equate me with the Unibomber, then I just have to conclude that you have no real response to it.
In response to 3)
"You believe I am somehow a danger to the Republic and to Liberty. " - Seagoon.
Yes, I absolutely do. 100%. A danger. No question.
I won't quote your post in its entirety, but encourage the readers here to visit it (above). You don't deny it, and in fact try to make an historical case for why your religion deserves a place no matter the means. All the while seemingly oblivious as to why the War of Independence was actually fought. Fer chrissakes.
In response to 4)
"Finally, please consider this, if you consider nothing else I have written: I am not consumed with hatred and rage."
That matters little. Neither are people numbering in the hundreds of thousands and untold millions who have been and are being destroyed with such dismissal. I could not give one good Golly-geen how you've written without "hatred and rage." Your sentiment means something? Tell that to the folks in Darfur. Your selectivity/lethargy is not a badge of honor.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
maybe it's just me nash but looking at muslim countries and then looking at christian ones....
I seem to be able to make a pretty sharp comparisson between the two brands of fundamentalism. I think I will worry much less about the the mormon kids in white shirt and tie at the door.
lazs
Me too.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
So... time to end this silly war on terror and get to the real problem.
Islamism.
or
Fundamentalism.
Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people. - Ferris Bueller
Islam
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't give a damn who wins. It's ultimately the same thing. And sad.
That might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
-
Nash, check your blood pressure. All this going on about extremism and fundamentalism has you frothing at the mouth. Maybe you should try a less extreme or fundamental approach to combating extremism and fundamentalism.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Nash, check your blood pressure. All this going on about extremism and fundamentalism has you frothing at the mouth. Maybe you should try a less extreme or fundamental approach to combating extremism and fundamentalism.
:rofl
Sig material. Thanks. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
This week alone produced, in quick succession,...
That's quite a litany.
It's clear you don't approve of these but I'm not clear on the "why" of your disapproval.
Take for example the SD abortion law.
Are you against any law limiting abortion or is it the whole idea of the people of a State, through their elected representatives, passing such a law that you find abhorrent?
Same with the Supreme Court ruling; why does it bother you? Is it that abortion protesters are going to be given the same rights as the Nazi marchers that bothers you? Or just that the ruling was in their favor?
And the apparent dissapproval expressed here:
"You," it's widely accepted, were responsible for putting Bush over the top in 2004.
Are you unhappy that they turned out and voted for the candidate of their choice or are you unhappy that they turned out and didn't vote for the candidate of your choice? Or are you unhappy that they were allowed to vote at all?
And Mr. Monahan...while I have no intention of living in his idea of utopia, what is it you find abhorrent?
That in the US a rich guy can sponsor a community where people voluntarily choose to live in accordance with a specific list of guidelines?
Or just that you don't approve of his guidelines?
-
"That's quite a litany. It's clear you don't approve of these but I'm not clear on the "why" of your disapproval." - Toad
Why thank you. Fair enough.
Take for example the SD abortion law.
Okay, lets.
Are you against any law limiting abortion or is it the whole idea of the people of a State, through their elected representatives, passing such a law that you find abhorrent?
Interesting, if somewhat absurdly worded question.
Are you against any law limiting the use of firearms or is the whole idea of the people of a State, through their elected representatives, passing such a law that you find abhorrent?
Could it possibly be that both things can co-exist? That you could be for Democracy, while at the same time be against some of the results?
If not, then you brand lazs as an anarchist for disliking seatbelt laws.
Same with the Supreme Court ruling; why does it bother you? Is it that abortion protesters are going to be given the same rights as the Nazi marchers that bothers you?
Another question, asked in good faith I'm so sure, and equally as absurd..... at least to me. Though I at least find it kind of fascinating that you would use fascists as the perfect analogy to pro-lifers in order to make the case for equality under the law.
Your questions are quite lazily designed, Toad, and you risk giving me the impression that you just don't know any better.
Or just that the ruling was in their favor?
Ahh.... now you're getting somewhere. Yes, I am pissed that the ruling was in their favor.
Are you unhappy that they turned out and voted for the candidate of their choice or are you unhappy that they turned out and didn't vote for the candidate of your choice? Or are you unhappy that they were allowed to vote at all?
And now back to your strange questions. I was laying the foundation for religion's increased role in politics (as if this seriously needs edifying), and to you this is supposed to be my lamenting the fact that people voted for the candidate of their choice. And once again through your posing yet another false dichotomy. Look at your questions Toad. They are ridiculous. "Are you for this, or are you for that?" Wherein "this" equals killing puppies and "that" equals killing kittens.
And Mr. Monahan...while I have no intention of living in his idea of utopia, what is it you find abhorrent?
Okay, back to a reasonable question. My inclusion of this instance, in answer to Seagoon, was to provide yet another example of the many whose goal it is to legislate morality. It certainly wasn't the sum total of my argument. But the gist of it is the same; that to the fundamentalists, it is not enough to be content with their own personal beliefs. They won't be happy until everyone shares them, or at least abides by them - if that means Monahan's creation of a town, or the pressure applied to a Democratically elected government to impose laws upon everyone, whether or not anyone else shares those same values.
It's.... I don't even know how to describe what's happening here Toad.
Why are Liberals like me having to be the spokespeople regarding the dangers of any government's infringement on personal freedoms and individual rights? The gradual encroaching upon and erosion of them? Why are conservatives like you and lazs all of a sudden becoming the most eloquent apologizers of these infringements? Why is the right making arguments for government wiretapping, for secrecy, for the expansion of government, for the repatriation of Church and State, for out of control spending and for restriction of choice?
I mean... In what world are we living in that would have a Liberal like me arguing against these things, and Conservatives like you arguing for them? It's like the Twighlight Zone.
But ultimately, Toad... in each of your questions, all you're really asking for is my opinion. I hope I've given it, and I certainly hope that it's still okay to hold one contrary to yours.
-
These moolims are living in the past and are as basakwards as they come.
If it was not for the oil money and OUR technology they would all still be living in tents milking goats.
To He11 with them the sooner the world gets fed up with them and kicks there butts back into the stone age the better.
-
This guy is on your team, Toad.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Hell.. all that's missing is a resurgence of the plauge.
" ...the........ plauge....... *gasp* .... plauge...."
Plauge, we get it here in NM every year..... Just feed it som red chilli
Gunns
-
Originally posted by Nash
Are you against any law limiting the use of firearms or is the whole idea of the people of a State, through their elected representatives, passing such a law that you find abhorrent?
[/b]
The right to bear arms is part of the Constitutional guarantees. You can't say that for abortion. So, this is an absurdly worded answer.
Beyond that, in the areas where States have jurisdiction over firearms, and States can and do pass restrictive gun laws (ie: California), I simply choose not to live in that State. I recognize their "State's Right" to pass the laws they desire, within the Constitution. It's their "choice". ;)
And even beyond that, your answer was in response to Seagoon's reply to your original question "What exactly is the difference between y'all? A question where "y'all" refers to Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists.
And in reference to that your answer becomes even more absurd. The people of SD, working within the Constitution through their elected representatives, passed legislation that will be reviewed and either endorsed or struck down by the highest civil court in the land. Compare that to Sharia and there is no comparison. At all. Obviously.
Another question, asked in good faith I'm so sure,
[/b]
And interestingly enough not answered. Again, you are the person making the totally absurd comparison equating Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists. You are the person outraged that in the "last week alone".
But I see you are merely against the SC ruling. Wah, wah.
Or are you implying that the Christian Fundamentalists have suborned the SC and taken it over with Roberts and Alito?
Because that is equally as absurd. This was a unanimous ruling, opinion written by BREYER with Alito abstaining because he wasn't on the SC during the arguments. It would appear that it was clearly decided on the law, not Christian Fundamentalism. Guess you're pissed about that, eh?
And now back to your strange questions. I was laying the foundation for religion's increased role in politics (as if this seriously needs edifying), and to you this is supposed to be my lamenting the fact that people voted for the candidate of their choice. And once again through your posing yet another false dichotomy.
Hardly. The fact is that for many people, religion does play a role in their politics. The question before YOU, the man who equates Christian Fundamentalism with Muslim Fundamentalism, is "does the US Constitution allow religion to play a role in a person's politics"?
Obviously, it does because it is not specifically restricted.
So while your lamentations over "religion's increased role" are trendy, they are not new or valid. Were you around when John Kennedy the Catholic ran for President? I was; religion was out in the open in politics then for all to see. Despite the "fundamentalists" whipping up anti-Catholic fears, Kennedy still won.
It was nothing new then, either. And, as has been oft pointed out, one of the very first acts of the very first Senate of the US was to hire a chaplain.
No, I think the truth is it is not religion per se in politics that concerns you but rather.... suprise.... you don't want to see people you personally don't agree with in power. Congrats and welcome to the club. There's about 300 million of us or so.
that to the fundamentalists, it is not enough to be content with their own personal beliefs. They won't be happy until everyone shares them, or at least abides by them - if that means Monahan's creation of a town, or the pressure applied to a Democratically elected government to impose laws upon everyone, whether or not anyone else shares those same values.
[/b]
Oh, horsepuckey. Monahan can't force ANYONE to share or abide in "his beliefs". One would have to choose to live in that burg.
Further, you forget that while Monahan can set the rules at the get-go, there will, inevitably, be a Mayor and City Council that will be responsible for local ordinances. I think Mr. M is in for a big suprise when he sees what his town becomes in 20 years. Or far less.
In the same way, there is choice in government. Like lots of gun laws? Move to Cali. Don't like 'em? Live in Texas. Want abortions? Cali 'fer shure, dude. Don't like 'em? Maybe try SD, all the while remembering that while SD passed a law it wanted, it's going to be reviewed for Constituionality by the SC.
"Pressure" is applied to Democratically elected government every day. Someone, somewhere hires a lobbyist to impose laws upon everyone, whether or not anyone else shares those same values. You act as if "religious" pressure is somehow different, new or special. It isn't. And in the end your personal freedoms to think, act and pray or not pray as you like are still and always under the shield of the Constitution.
Why are Liberals like me having to be the spokespeople regarding the dangers of any government's infringement on personal freedoms and individual rights?
[/b]
Because some of the things you hold so dear you only imagine have Constitutional standing as an individual right? Abortion being just one example?
The gradual encroaching upon and erosion of them?
[/b]
Because as so many have pointed out here before it's only a few that have somehow noticed this encroachment and erosion? Because it's only a few that don't have faith that any such encroachment and erosion that does occur will (eventually) be rectified in the Courts?
Why are conservatives like you and lazs
[/b]
Because we aren't? See above. A lot of this seems to exist solely in your mind, IMO... and I certainly hope that it's still okay to hold one contrary to yours.
And Conservative? I take it as a good sign that you lump me into the Conservative camp and the true conservatives think I'm too liberal. :)
Anyway, in the end, your long litany of sorrows apparently boils down to you agreeing it's IS the way things are supposed to work Constitutionally, but you don't like those things.
Gotcha.
-
Originally posted by Nash
This guy is on your team, Toad.
Which is yet another absurd observation by.... you.