Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LePaul on April 25, 2006, 01:10:07 AM
-
LOL, this is funnay...
Group Wants Prof Punished for Anti-Muslim E-Mail
Monday , April 24, 2006
LANSING, Michigan — An Islamic rights group on Monday urged Michigan State University to discipline an engineering professor for disparaging Muslims in an e-mail he sent to the school's Muslim Students' Association.
Indrek Wichman, a mechanical engineering professor, sent an e-mail to the student group Feb. 28 — apparently in response to its protests of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The students had labeled the cartoons as hate speech, not free speech.
Wichman, 50, wrote that he was protesting their protest and said he was not offended by cartoons but rather Muslims who commit suicide bombings, behead civilians, attack public buildings, burn Christian churches, kill Catholic priests in Turkey, rape Scandinavian girls and riot in France.
Wichman referred to Muslims as "dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems" and the protests as "infantile" in the e-mail. "If you do not like the values of the West . . . you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option."
Wichman declined to comment when contacted Monday by The Associated Press.
Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Michigan State officials should publicly denounce Wichman's statements and conduct an investigation. The results of the probe should be made public, and Wichman should at least have a letter of reprimand placed in his file, Walid said.
The group also wants Wichman and other faculty to receive sensitivity training before the fall semester.
University spokesman Terry Denbow said the school would not publicly condemn Wichman's statements because they were private and did not represent the school in any way. But he added that Wichman has been advised to be careful in the future.
-
Good for the University. He's there teaching adult students who can decide for themselves what they think of his statement.
-
"It's a rare thing these days to think what one likes and say what one thinks" - Tacitus (think I got it basically right).
We were having a discussion about how arabs and moslems discovered many of the old Roman texts and kept them alive, by studying them through the dark ages today in class. I suggested that we should thank them kindly, and return the books so they can start reading them again. It did not go over well.
I will maintain, however, that the day one charismatic moslem reads a few books about MLK jr. and Ghandi, will be the day that things like a free Palestine, etc., will start to become realities.
I agree with that professor. I hope he gets a raise.
-
I agree with him too, but the sword cuts both ways. Rightie politics don't have a place in universities any more than leftie politics do. If the guy sent a private email to this group, then fine. It's his right. If he's using his podium to "teach" this sort of thing in an engineering classroom, can him. I'd expect no more or less if he were some burned out hippie with a receding hair line, ponytail and reeking of marijuana.
-
Don't they know what happens to people who *demand* things? Didn't they watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Remember the brat who kept demanding stuff from her dad? And look where she ended up, down the chute to the bad egg incinerator.
We have bad egg incinerators in stock...
-
I`m expecting a protest to protest the protesting from the protesters. :D
"If you do not like the values of the West . . . you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option."
Get some prof.
-
Originally posted by VOR
I agree with him too, but the sword cuts both ways. Rightie politics don't have a place in universities any more than leftie politics do. If the guy sent a private email to this group, then fine. It's his right. If he's using his podium to "teach" this sort of thing in an engineering classroom, can him. I'd expect no more or less if he were some burned out hippie with a receding hair line, ponytail and reeking of marijuana.
True, it'd be a bit strange to hear about politics (at least these kind) in an engineering class, but this was a private letter. And really, the message to kids that their protest is ridiculous is spot on, because all the anger over a silly cartoon is pretty ridiculous in the first place.
Still, if my university threw out every teacher who brought politics in from time to time, there'd be no one left to teach. I don't think there's any reason a teacher should be fired or fined for bringing politics into the class unless it either is completely distracting from the topic at hand (as I'd imagine engineering would be), or if they in turn black list students for disagreeing. In a few classes, (history, sociology, geography, etc.), it can be interesting to compare/contrast politics, and is probably beneficial to do so. Just so long as both sides can be heard without fear of a poor mark, and so long as the teacher will occassionally play devils advocate for the side that's not getting much student support.
Edit - I'm talking college level here.
-
"Dahdy..you're auuullways making things difficult!" -Veruca Salt
-
Hello VOR,
Originally posted by VOR
I agree with him too, but the sword cuts both ways. Rightie politics don't have a place in universities any more than leftie politics do. If the guy sent a private email to this group, then fine. It's his right. If he's using his podium to "teach" this sort of thing in an engineering classroom, can him. I'd expect no more or less if he were some burned out hippie with a receding hair line, ponytail and reeking of marijuana.
Actually here's where the categories get confused, opposing Islam is not a "rightie" or a "leftie" issue. Technically, it's not political at all, and certainly the Danes are amongst the least likely people on the planet to be accused of having published the cartoons because they are "right-wing" or "conservative." In fact, a cogent argument could be advanced that they published the cartoons precisely because they are left-wing secular humanists opposed to the concept that any religion should be protected from ridicule or criticism by blasphemy laws ,or even that there really is such a thing as "blasphemy."
Our problem in the West is that we have whole-heartedly embraced the Marxist idea that all of life is a "political struggle" and consequently whether we are conservative or liberal we tend to want to frame any controversy or struggle in political terms. So curiously while Islam is one of the most conservative religions on earth, and European liberals increasingly see it as the religious counterpart to facism, to oppose it, or to speak against it is seen as a "conservative response" especially here in America.
There are reasons for that of course, two in particular stand out. First, Islam is seen as a "third-world" religion and therefore automatically a religion of the oppressed. Those who are oppressed and exploited by the forces of colonialism and captialism are normally always favored by leftists, who expect them to be brothers in the political arena. Unfortunately, this is where the cognitive dissonance really sets in, the idea that thirdworlders would be in favor of a system that desires to oppress others and establish a world-wide theocracy, with an unchanging theocratic legal code, ruled by a single Caliph, that would outlaw all political movements including Communism simply doesn't compute. So often they end up supporting a movement that ultimately wants to eliminate their worldview. Second, Islam is patently not Christianity, therefore it would normally be accorded favored status in that it is not the religion of the perceived Western oppressors, regardless of the actual content of the religion. Curiously, this reasoning also has led the left to support ancient Aztec religion, which at its center exalted monarchs to god-like status and involved the royalty and the priesthood cutting the hearts out of living sacrifices in order to placate angry gods.
What we need to be able to do is think in terms of ideologies and worldviews that involve, but transcend politics. For instance, Islam has some very definite ideas about what should happen to politics, but it is actually a comprehensive world and life view that addresses every aspect of human existence and so we need to ask not is it left or right, but the more basic question "can we coexist with Islam on their terms?" (not ours, because Islam presupposes that their terms will prevail and works to that end as a goal).
But I digress. All of that is to say, this isn't really about a prof. teaching politics. The real question is, should a prof. be allowed to tell a Muslim students group what he thinks of their worldview? I believe the answer to that is unquestionably, yes. A prof. should also be allowed to tell the Baptist Students Union or the Bi, Gay, Lesbian, Transexual, Student association the same thing. Anyone on Campus should be. This is not a question of partisan politics it is a question of worldview and freedom of speech. Let the Islamic rights group have its way in this case, and you are actually allowing them free-speech while muzzling all other speech, and tacitly accepting the agenda their ideology is promoting.
- SEAGOON
-
Any american muslim that advocates the violant overthrow of the government of the United States of America should be immediately sent to the Gitmo.
Any muslim residing in the United States that has a problem respecting the freedom of speech, be they american or visa holders, should have their citizenship revoked and be deported, never allowed to return.
-
This makes me proud to be a Spartan, MSU alumni! LOL we all know its not because of our sports teams!
-
The demands from his colleagues that he be reprimanded and get "sensitivity training" are proof that Winston Churchill's "Boneless Wonder" found a way to reproduce.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The demands from his colleagues that he be reprimanded and get "sensitivity training" are proof that Winston Churchill's "Boneless Wonder" found a way to reproduce.
What is this? I've never heard of it? :confused:
-
Vudak,
I've heard a couple of different tales about when and where Churchill first used this anecdote. Evidently, it began as part of one ofhis innumerable harangues against a gutless House of Commons and its leadership (specifically Ramsay MacDonald.)
Anyway, it goes like this:
"I remember when i was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibition on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as "The Boneless Wonder." My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited fifty years, to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Board..
...(alternate ending) I have waited fifty years to find the House of Commons filled with the monstrosities...behold the Boneless Wonders!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Vudak,
I've heard a couple of different tales about when and where Churchill first used this anecdote. Evidently, it began as part of one ofhis innumerable harangues against a gutless House of Commons and its leadership (specifically Ramsay MacDonald.)
Anyway, it goes like this:
"I remember when i was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibition on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as "The Boneless Wonder." My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited fifty years, to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Board..
...(alternate ending) I have waited fifty years to find the House of Commons filled with the monstrosities...behold the Boneless Wonders!
Regards, Shuckins
Truly the best Brit ever :aok (being part American probably helped :) )
-
Originally posted by Vudak
"It's a rare thing these days to think what one likes and say what one thinks" - Tacitus (think I got it basically right).
We were having a discussion about how arabs and moslems discovered many of the old Roman texts and kept them alive, by studying them through the dark ages today in class. I suggested that we should thank them kindly, and return the books so they can start reading them again. It did not go over well.
I will maintain, however, that the day one charismatic moslem reads a few books about MLK jr. and Ghandi, will be the day that things like a free Palestine, etc., will start to become realities.
I agree with that professor. I hope he gets a raise.
I am offended that you’ve misspelled their religious identity and demand that you apologize to all Moshslum people!
-
I love pulling Muslim's from a shell.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I am offended that you’ve misspelled their religious identity and demand that you apologize to all Moshslum people!
:D
-
dang those musselmans dang them all
-
Originally posted by VOR
I agree with him too, but the sword cuts both ways. Rightie politics don't have a place in universities any more than leftie politics do. If the guy sent a private email to this group, then fine. It's his right. If he's using his podium to "teach" this sort of thing in an engineering classroom, can him. I'd expect no more or less if he were some burned out hippie with a receding hair line, ponytail and reeking of marijuana.
He sent a PRIVATE email, no one has accused him of doing anything in class, as far as I can see.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Any american muslim that advocates the violant overthrow of the government of the United States of America should be immediately sent to the Gitmo.
Any muslim residing in the United States that has a problem respecting the freedom of speech, be they american or visa holders, should have their citizenship revoked and be deported, never allowed to return.
What about the american anything-else-but-muslim that advocates the violant (sic) overthrow of the government of the United States of America? There are quite a few on this board....
-
Don`t worry. France is safe. :rofl
-
Hi deSelys,
Originally posted by deSelys
What about the american anything-else-but-muslim that advocates the violant (sic) overthrow of the government of the United States of America? There are quite a few on this board....
I'm not necessarily disputing your claim, but I haven't read any Americans here calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government. Can you provide an example of "quite a few"?
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi deSelys,
I'm not necessarily disputing your claim, but I haven't read any Americans here calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government. Can you provide an example of "quite a few"?
Thanks!
Laz ?
-
Yes Lazs is a prime example.
I remember Hangtime and others discussing what they would do if suddenly the government decided that they weren't allowed to have guns anymore. Some were ready to use lethal force. I also remember yourself disagreeing with them.
Sorry, I have no time right now to look it up. I'll do it later if possible...
-
I said that.
But that was a big IF. Other then this PC bull****, I have nothing wrong with the current version.
-
Thank you for your prompt reply.
So Laz and Hangtime have openly called for the violent overthrow of the US Government as it now stands?
Deselys, I may well be wrong about this, but my understanding of the thread you referenced was that Laz and a few others believed that if private firearms ownership was made illegal in the USA that would be tantamount to illegally nullifying part of the Constitution and that the government itself would therefore be acting against the foundational principles of this nation and should therefore be overthrown and replaced with a government that would act in accord with the constitution. I disagreed because I don't believe I have a right to rebel and take up arms against the civil magistrate over something I regard to be adiaphora - i.e. a matter of indifference.
It is my understanding though that Laz and Hangtime do not advocate the violent overthrow of the current government. They'll have to confirm or deny that.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
So Laz and Hangtime have openly called for the violent overthrow of the US Government as it now stands?
this was not the question you asked.
-
Actually you can place me on that list. I am an advocate of the violent over throw of the US Govenment circa 1774 and 1775. The way I look at it, it was a good thing.
Wichman, 50, wrote that he was protesting their protest and said he was not offended by cartoons but rather Muslims who commit suicide bombings, behead civilians, attack public buildings, burn Christian churches, kill Catholic priests in Turkey, rape Scandinavian girls and riot in France.
Frankly I think this guy is on to something. I am a bit offended by people who kill indiscriminately, kill the innocent, the weak, the helpless. I have yet to see any of the muslim terrorists apologize for their actions, much less mere words or drawings.
-
I disagreed because I don't believe I have a right to rebel and take up arms against the civil magistrate over something I regard to be adiaphora - i.e. a matter of indifference.
Seagoon, how about if they abolished the first amendment and our freedom of religion?
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
This makes me proud to be a Spartan, MSU alumni! LOL we all know its not because of our sports teams!
LOL having grown up 2 miles from MSU's campus I can tell you that if you think it is a Right oriented school you should have seen it in the "old days".
MSU today is regarded by most in the Lansing area to be one of the most "liberal" schools in the nation, and many long for the good ol days of yesteryear.
-
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/scott.donaldson/smilies/grammartime3fs.gif)
Ba da da da...
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
Seagoon, how about if they abolished the first amendment and our freedom of religion?
freedom of religon is an illusion.
-
You can believe whatever religion you want but when you must kill me if I am not a believer in your religion then you are on my "most in need of extinction list"
-
I had no idea who General Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did "Google and USA Today" searches on the General and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about!! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)
MG Vernon Chong, USAFR forwarded:
This WAR is for REAL!
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents
Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no
provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany
was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You
either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by
the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed
by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on
the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the
world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the
Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone
from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist
Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us
"infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically
correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize
and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us
simply do not fathom the answer to the second question -
What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home
and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really
means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.
Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an
increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us,
until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would
see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already
hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain
did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want
Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't
win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too
late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who
would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost.
We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot
unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
-
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to
recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were
committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the
civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored
them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights
during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your
head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally
like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize
what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening.
It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same
reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the
complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death
struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his
fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can
survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are
disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which
the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just
in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are
arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those
who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will
survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the
self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or
read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less.
They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the
established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done,
which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope
now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will
unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Muslims ? They can KMA ! :t
CHECKERS
-
If you're going to start foaming at the mouth and get all worked up about Mooselimbs taking over the world and them making your womenZ wear burkas then at least do it based on facts and and not some kind of intardnet bait aimed at "knuckle dragging" stupid types...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
-
Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want
Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France.
Fake or not add Poland and you have the first few countries to fall in WWII - interesting.
-
D.B. Cooper is a muslim
-
We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
I don't believe there acutally is such a thing as a "temporary" loss of civil rights. Once you lose them they are gone for good. It dosen't matter how, why or to who you lose them to.
-
Originally posted by Westy
If you're going to start foaming at the mouth and get all worked up about Mooselimbs taking over the world and them making your womenZ wear burkas then at least do it based on facts and and not some kind of intardnet bait aimed at "knuckle dragging" stupid types...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
Well then that's one smart retired-attorney there. When's the aluminum drive?
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
I don't believe there acutally is such a thing as a "temporary" loss of civil rights. Once you lose them they are gone for good. It dosen't matter how, why or to who you lose them to.
Japanese Americans lost their civil rights in WW2, were put in camps, and later restored as citizens. Slaves came here with nothing and eventually were emancipated. Prohibition turned ordinary people into criminals, but was repealed. Even women can vote nowadays :)
I'm not saying it was okay to put people in camps, but to say that there's no such thing as a temporary loss is historically incorrect. That said, best to not give up the rights in the first place :)
-
Hello TPI,
Originally posted by TPIguy
Seagoon, how about if they abolished the first amendment and our freedom of religion?
That's a subject I've intellectually struggled with for some time.
Both historically and in the present, many bible-believing Christians have lived as citizens of lands in which the practice or promulgation of Christianity is forbidden without actually taking up arms against the state. This has been the case from the very beginning. For instance, in Acts chapter 5 the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling counsel) forbade the Apostles to teach and preach the Christian faith for a second time, the apostles never even considered complying with this command, declaring simply to the authorities: "We ought to obey God rather than men."
Naturally, this brought increasing persecution down upon them, including, beatings, prison, and execution. By the end of the first century, the Roman Empire had made Christianity one of the empire's only illegal religions, and began actively persecuting those who worshipped Jesus, particularly because they would not perform certain civic/ceremonial duties all loyal members of the empire were expected to perform including the sacrificial burning of incense to Caesar (an act of worship and obedience). And yet throughout two hundred of years of active persecution, the Christians never took up arms against the state in armed rebellion, they simply continued to practice the faith and eventually overcame the empire not by strength of arms, but through the message of the gospel.
So, I can find little support for armed rebellion in order to secure religious freedom in the apostolic or ancient church. Frankly, the course of action was civil disobedience and occasionally flight.
Frankly, I expect my religious freedom to be gradually whittled away and for the state to increasingly insist on a right to assume the perogatives of the family in "training children." For instance, the recently passed SB 1437 in California which requires "all grades" in Public Schools to actively promote and teach homosexual history and forbids "adverse" commentary on homosexuality whether it be in text books or teachings. This would include speaking of marriage only in terms of one woman and one man. This of course essentially circumvents the ability of Christian parents to consistently teach the biblical viewpoint regarding sex and ethics. In many states it is becoming increasingly difficult to homeschool, and obviously not every parent can afford to pay taxes to support public schools and also pay for a private school education. I expect these legislative trends to increase, especially as the bible and Evangelical Christianity become progressively more unpopular in the West and the inhibitions regarding legislating against "hate speech" continue to fade.
So should we begin an armed rebellion when there is no other way to protect our right to raise up our own children? The emotive side of me wants to say yes, but while I can find plenty of examples of civil disobedience (I would have no problems hiding Jews from Nazis for instance), I find the biblical bar for armed rebellion against the civil magistrate set very high. I know that evangelical Christians were leaders in the English Civil War and the American Revolution, but I often wonder if they were not too quick to take up arms.
Anyway, that's my struggle. So the answer to your question is "not necessarily." In fact I just got finished typing an email to a man pastoring a new church in a country where it is illegal to start a new church. None of his members have plans for an armed uprising.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Westy
If you're going to start foaming at the mouth and get all worked up about Mooselimbs taking over the world and them making your womenZ wear burkas then at least do it based on facts and and not some kind of intardnet bait aimed at "knuckle dragging" stupid types...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
Westy, According to your snops liberal based California based website .....
You may be right ........ about the author ... I conceed to that,
But as to your your other mental miget remarks to me, and about "my Old Lady " ?
from your little perch .........
I can back my mud !
CHECKERS
-
Very thought provoking answer Seagoon. I rarely post here, but I always enjoy reading what you have to say. Thanks for taking the time to address my question.
-
Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want
Spain to do will be done.
It was never that simple.
Firstly the Spanish people were overwhelmingly against sending troops to Iraq in the first place.
Secondly the incumbant government at the time deliberately tried to blame the attacks on ETA as they new their Iraq policy was already unpopular. Once this attempt at spin came out they were doomed in the elections.
Once this came it out in the open the goverment was doomed. The Spanish people voted in the opposition whose Iraq policy was more popular (and had been more popular before the bombings anyway). That's just democracy in action: don't implement unpopular policies and then lie about the consequences.
-
Pei,
Originally posted by Pei
don't implement unpopular policies and then lie about the consequences.
It has since been shown that the bombings were done by home-grown Andalusian Jihadis. Since the total withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, the terror campaign has continued, which should have surprised no one.
You may find this interesting but the unpopular government policy that the Jihadis in Spain are opposed to was the end of Muslim control of the Iberian peninsula in the 15th century. Their current campaign is ultimately aimed at reversing that particular setback. Given sufficient time their chances of success are excellent.
EDIT: For more on the war for Andalusia, this article from the Toronto Star is worth reading: Andalusia's Connection (http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/009331.html)
- SEAGOON
-
If you're going to get fired up after reading, and posting, a wall of text made from bull_dung then your'e declaring to the reader that you're as clever and smart as a block of granite.
"nops liberal based California based website"
lol. You're batting a thousand.
-
Originally posted by Westy
If you're going to get fired up after reading, and posting, a wall of text made from bull_dung then your'e declaring to the reader that you're as clever and smart as a block of granite.
I'm just wondering, what makes it "bull_dung?" Just because the author was misrepresented? What about the words inside? I think the guy had some points. I wouldn't take him as the be all and end all, but he has some points. Whoever he is.
-
Why is is BS? Besides it not what it claims to be which is an essay written by a retired USAAf General? It is a wall'O'text that someone tried to lend validity and credence to by claiming the Generals wrote it al while sprinkling enough convenient facts into it in order to support the new right wing hysteria (last one being the Marxist and Communism)
It's BS because it's something that through countless forwardings and embellishments has grown into a shrill, paranoid, chickenhawk spiel about the coming downfall of the US and all of Western civilisation at the hands of the Mooselimbs.
p.s. this kind of BS feeds the sheep and lemmings who cannot and won't think for themselves.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
What about the american anything-else-but-muslim that advocates the violant (sic) overthrow of the government of the United States of America? There are quite a few on this board....
Yeah I was wondering that myself. It's a constitutional right, and the main reason we have the right to bear arms.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Why is is BS? Besides it not what it claims to be which is an essay written by a retired USAAf General? It is a wall'O'text that someone tried to lend validity and credence to by claiming the Generals wrote it al while sprinkling enough convenient facts into it in order to support the new right wing hysteria (last one being the Marxist and Communism)
It's BS because it's something that through countless forwardings and embellishments has grown into a shrill, paranoid, chickenhawk spiel about the coming downfall of the US and all of Western civilisation at the hands of the Mooselimbs.
p.s. this kind of BS feeds the sheep and lemmings who cannot and won't think for themselves.
Westy it's unamerican to not think what the TV tells you to think!
People like you want to hurt christmas! :mad: