Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 123
  1. #61  
    In Jerusalem they have a little garden, The Garden of the Just, planted with trees honoring Christians who assisted Jews during the Holocaust. The first time I saw it, I was struck by the small number of trees. Then I realized that it was terribly difficult to be numbered among the just. To do so, one would have to ignore received wisdom, overcome fear, and set oneself in opposition one's family and friends.

    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Need another round? Last call!
    I do not think so. I think Hobbes proudly flaunts his prejudice, not to say, bigotry, and justifies it as simply common sense. Like many of those who do so, he does it while promising to reserve judgement, while promising to judge the man and ignore the affiliation. He demonstrates how difficult that is to do.

    George Bush does not pretend to objectivity.
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  2. #62  
    These two Mormon ladies come round to my house every Saturday for the last 3 years, which I have always felt to be a great imposition, and rather impolite, but they are so nice about it, like slick salesmen, that I have never gotten up the courage to tell them to stop and go away. I do feel its rather rude, but I would have to be even more rude to get rid of them, so I feel taken advantage of.

    This has obviously shaped my rather hostile opinion of Mormons.

    Surur
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I do not think so. I think Hobbes proudly flaunts his prejudice, not to say, bigotry, and justifies it as simply common sense. Like many of those who do so, he does it while promising to reserve judgement, while promising to judge the man and ignore the affiliation. He demonstrates how difficult that is to do.
    As I have stated several times over in this very thread (let alone in others on the similar topics), I have been nothing but honest and open with no agenda whatsoever....which seems to be incomprehensible to some that this could actually be.... the truth. Over the last nearly 5 years here at TC, I have been consistent. In the past discussion on politics, religion, etc... I have stated my opinion, remained open to new insights and further education and views of others, researched new and alternative sources, and have changed or moved position as a result of being open minded and not locked stepped into a specific nonbending mind set. I have very willingly admitted several times when needed that I was wrong or freely recognize the validity of an opposing view even while recognizing that I would personally not subscribe to it. Ask Barye, DaThomas, NRG, Cell, etc... I have moved to or agreed with them several times in the past with thoughtful discussions and debates about topics which we originally shared opposing views on. I honestly shared the questions I think many would ask and I would be interested in confirming as well in that given situation. I recognize it is often times hard to relate to someone who doesn't align themselves along party or religious lines and does not walk the traditional in step to their beat. And just like with any candidate once my questions are confirmed to my liking, then they are moved to my possible-voting-for-list, in spite of political party, gender, or religious affiliation.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/08/2007 at 07:54 PM.
  4.    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Hi Barye. Interesting theory. If true then would this make a lot of the outcry and distributing antimormon literature and statements more politically and/or money motivated?

    Since talking with my Mormons contacts over the years it is obvious that they are Christians I always found it kind of funny to hear that someone converted from Christian to Mormonism. It is just like saying that they converted from Christian to Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, Born Again, etc..
    Hobbes -- I'm emerging from my confessional to admit that my knowledge of the arcania of Christian and Mormon theology, dogma, and doctrine is not as deep as it might be -- nevertheless I believe you’re underestimating the virulence of Christian animus toward Mormonism. (it was not just for polygamy that they murdered Joseph Smith...polygamy: great marketing tool BTW).

    For Christians, the bible as the literal words of god is a sacrosanct precept. Mr. Smith’s elaborations directly and poisonously contradict their faith.

    It is blasphemy to Christians to speak of god as a man, to say that J.C. was conceived through boy girl sex, and not through some immaculate conception. They don’t lightly take Mormon’s talk of J.C. coming to america after his resurrection.

    These ideas are visceral to who they are and how they understand the world. They may be able to tolerate Mormons, but to embrace one as their President, their leader, is a bit more of a cross than they are willing to bear.
    Last edited by BARYE; 12/08/2007 at 06:19 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #65  
    No actually I do get that....I just never thought of it in light of your previous statement. No matter the religion (or sects within the same religious classification), differences in doctrine has historically been a very bitter bite to swallow without a violent reaction.
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    ...I have stated my opinion, remained open to new insights and further education and views of others, researched new and alternative sources, and have changed or moved position as a result of being open minded and not locked stepped into a specific nonbending mind set. I have admitted several times when needed that I was wrong or freely recognize the validity of an opposing view even while recognizing that I would personally not subscribe to it. Ask Barye, DaThomas, NRG, Cell, etc... I have moved to or agreed with them several times in the past with thoughtful discussions and debates about topics which we originally shared opposing views on...
    Its true -- BARYE and Hobbes have come together in past discussions.

    That's been especially the case with topics like immigration, where BARYE is sometimes to the right of Hobbes...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Hi Barye. Interesting theory. If true then would this make a lot of the outcry and distributing antimormon literature and statements more politically and/or money motivated?

    Since talking with my Mormons contacts over the years it is obvious that they are Christians I always found it kind of funny to hear that someone converted from Christian to Mormonism. It is just like saying that they converted from Christian to Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, Born Again, etc..
    It is ironic that those other "Christians" who, somewhat uncharitably, style the Mormons as a "cult" are the self-styled "evangelical" Christians. After all, only cultists could possibly out evangelize them. Nonetheless, I have little doubt that they do; about two or three to one in my experience.

    (How does one distinguish between a cult and a religion? Is there any other difference than the number of its adherents? One that someone who is not already a member of "The One True Religion" might recognize and rely upon?)
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    These two Mormon ladies come round to my house every Saturday for the last 3 years, which I have always felt to be a great imposition, and rather impolite, but they are so nice about it, like slick salesmen, that I have never gotten up the courage to tell them to stop and go away. I do feel its rather rude, but I would have to be even more rude to get rid of them, so I feel taken advantage of.

    This has obviously shaped my rather hostile opinion of Mormons.

    Surur
    Not to belittle your thoughts shared here, but my first thought that just popped into my mind...."The Horror, insulted by kindness"
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    These two Mormon ladies come round to my house every Saturday for the last 3 years, which I have always felt to be a great imposition, and rather impolite, but they are so nice about it, like slick salesmen, that I have never gotten up the courage to tell them to stop and go away. I do feel its rather rude, but I would have to be even more rude to get rid of them, so I feel taken advantage of.

    This has obviously shaped my rather hostile opinion of Mormons.

    Surur
    When I was a young soldier and a member of the one true religion, I was proselytized by an officer member of a cult who only wanted to "save" me. I thought that telling him that I was already a communicant would satisfy him and make him go away; it did not work. Trying to save me was charity but trying to convert me was rude. I was Catholic and he was Baptist.

    I have noticed through a generous lifetime that the Baptists always tried to convert me where they were; at least the Mormons come to me.
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  10. #70  
    That is why I like Judiasm - no zealous push to convert others.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    As I have stated several times over in this very thread (let alone in others on the similar topics), I have been nothing but honest and open with no agenda whatsoever....which seems to be incomprehensible to some that this could actually be.... the truth.
    Ummmm. Despite your best intentions, your words betray you. Other subjects in which you've maintained differing opinions from others, only to come around has no bearing here, as your multitude of axes to grind are perfectly obvious to anyone but the willfully blind. If this were not so, you would've taken another shot of courage, while you had the opportunity, and come to terms with the pattern which you've established in this thread [see below, just to refresh your selective memory] which is consistent with the antagonistic/defensive tone you've consistently expressed elsewhere on similar subjects surrounding the Middle East. If the relationship of the terms you choose to use means nothing more than what you've already stated, I'll accept that you simply have nothing more to say on the matter. However, nothing changes the relationship words have, whether intended or unintended.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Yet again, I will say that I did in the post you linked to where you said I did not. And then reafirmed it in several follow up posts. It really is simple, maybe too simple. If a candidate was a Muslim I would not be automatically voting against him on his religous affiliation alone without any additional education about him on my part...about his beliefs about the issues, his political platform, associations with any radical organizations, etc.. . That's it. That is my whole point I made. Nothing more and nothing less. No hidden agenda. No religious witch hunt. I would inquire like I would any other candidate and discover what opinions, his organization affiliations, his political standings, his past political decisions, his past experience, his plan for issues important to me, etc... and then decide.
    When you begin to mingle in qualifying terms like religious faction, association to terrorism. as the initial discussion of a Presidential candidate's Muslim faith, you imply a likelihood. No reasonable person assumes that every Methodist Presidential candidate has a likelihood of a relationship to a destructive group which wraps itself in Christianity, but is only focused on socioeconomic interests. Nor should any Presidential candidate be subjected to such low-brow, swift boat-type consideration.

    Statements such as this, where you intermingle terrorism specifically with Islam, you undermine your current even-handed portrayal of your opinion, just as your other soft-pedaled propa on this forum:
    In other Terrorist threads we have discussed and sourced many of the published reasons radical Islamic groups oppose a democratic gov based on religious theology.....basically that God has the sole word on the rule of man. And that only only a Muslim leader can speak for God. So he must be the final word leader. And specifically states that democracy is an evil because we are then obeying the will of man and not God.
    When you further underscored your intended meaning of the terms you use, is where I began to highlight that this discussion is about a Presidential candidate with political Party-backing and support organization who has already gone through the gauntlet of being vetted:
    It was very clear in my statement that the factions and ties were associated with radical Islamic groups that are terrorists or support terrorists justified by religious claims.
    Yet, you're stridently going to pursue your very own little vetting process to insure this Presidential candidate isn't planning on blowing up the White House after sneaking through the election:
    I said I would ask questions to verify that he is NOT in any way associated with any terrorist groups.
    Need another round? Last call!
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Ummmm. Despite your best intentions, your words betray you. Other subjects in which you've maintained differing opinions from others, only to come around has no bearing here, as your multitude of axes to grind are perfectly obvious to anyone but the willfully blind. If this were not so, you would've taken another shot of courage, while you had the opportunity, and come to terms with the pattern which you've established in this thread [see below, just to refresh your selective memory] which is consistent with the antagonistic/defensive tone you've consistently expressed elsewhere on similar subjects surrounding the Middle East. If the relationship of the terms you choose to use means nothing more than what you've already stated, I'll accept that you simply have nothing more to say on the matter. However, nothing changes the relationship words have, whether intended or unintended.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



    When you begin to mingle in qualifying terms like religious faction, association to terrorism. as the initial discussion of a Presidential candidate's Muslim faith, you imply a likelihood. No reasonable person assumes that every Methodist Presidential candidate has a likelihood of a relationship to a destructive group which wraps itself in Christianity, but is only focused on socioeconomic interests. Nor should any Presidential candidate be subjected to such low-brow, swift boat-type consideration.

    Statements such as this, where you intermingle terrorism specifically with Islam, you undermine your current even-handed portrayal of your opinion, just as your other soft-pedaled propa on this forum:

    When you further underscored your intended meaning of the terms you use, is where I began to highlight that this discussion is about a Presidential candidate with political Party-backing and support organization who has already gone through the gauntlet of being vetted:

    Yet, you're stridently going to pursue your very own little vetting process to insure this Presidential candidate isn't planning on blowing up the White House after sneaking through the election:

    Need another round? Last call!
    Thank you. I thought that perhaps I was picking a fight where there was not one. I think that Hobbes is a nice man who has lost his way. Like many others, he confuses "politically correct" with ethical.
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  13. #73  
    Isn't it interesting. We start out discussing what seems to be a pragmatic political question and find ourselves discussing a fundamental, not to say, existential, ethical one, i.e., is bigotry ever justified by the target?
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    When you begin to mingle in qualifying terms like religious faction, association to terrorism. as the initial discussion of a Presidential candidate's Muslim faith, you imply a likelihood.
    I see the confusion. I was not very clear. My original thought process was not stated explicitly. I am being as honest as possible. And I know being completely honest I can easily be exploited and blown out of proportion. As I have stated, the question of association is NOT the first and certainly NOT the main focus I would have concern a Muslim presidential candidate for president.....and was never intended to be. It is listed in the OP as is because that would be the only additional question I might have for such a candidate. Just like when I answered about and Atheist, I would ask one additional question about his views of the freedom of religion and his views in detail defining separation of church and state. Just like a candidate that has worked for a major law firm for corp, I would ask additional questions about any possible continual corp ties and their industries and his dealings for or against or with them. Just like I would ask one additional question for a candidate who.... It is only one additional question in a LONG laundry list of questions. Again, there is no assumption of quilt or association.

    So I took my own advise from earlier in the thread when talking about a Mormon for a president, I went to an original source. As I have stated many times in the past I do have a few fairly close devout and born Muslim friends from previous work associations that I will have lunch with every once in a while. I called him and asked to him to read this thread and get his thoughts. I asked him beforehand to be very honest with me about what I posted, which I can attest to has historically always be very blunt and straight the point....never beating around the bush. I even promised him I would post his opinion of me no matter if he felt I was wrong or not. He said that he did not have a problem with my posts. He is very outspoken about the evil acts and his non support for fringe Islamic terrorist orgs and those who support them directly, financially, or indirectly by not speaking out against them. He even stated he would probably ask the same thing as even though these Radical Islam orgs are only a very small percentage of Muslims, their orgs have a long reach into many different areas. He said it best when he said "It is not an unreasonable question during the process of qualifying a president of the United States. It would not be so much a question of character of the individual, but given the current realities of the situation in the world confirmation of independence from them, both ideologically (which hopefully is not even a question of a person in this position anyways) but probably more along the lines of financially."
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/09/2007 at 02:04 PM.
  15. #75  
    Hobbes, you know, anyone who professes some religion can be devout, and people with devout religious beliefs by definition has some disconnect from reality, and a non-rational belief in the supernatural.

    You should be asking these questions from all candidates, not just Moslem ones. Are you not concerned that a catholic presidential candidate may have some ties to the IRA, or a Jewish presidential candidate may have Zionist beliefs?

    Surur
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I see the confusion. I was not very clear. My original thought process was not stated explicitly. I am being as honest as possible. And I know being completely honest I can easily be exploited and blown out of proportion. As I have stated, the question of association is NOT the first and certainly NOT the main focus I would have concern a Muslim presidential candidate for president.....and was never intended to be. It is listed in the OP as is because that would be the only additional question I might have for such a candidate. Just like when I answered about and Atheist, I would ask one additional question about his views of the freedom of religion and his views in detail defining separation of church and state. Just like a candidate that has worked for a major law firm for corp, I would ask additional questions about any possible continual corp ties and their industries and his dealings for or against or with them. Just like I would ask one additional question for a candidate who.... It is only one additional question in a LONG laundry list of questions. Again, there is no assumption of quilt or association.

    So I took my own advise from earlier in the thread when talking about a Mormon for a president, I went to an original source. As I have stated many times in the past I do have a few fairly close devout and born Muslim friends from previous work associations that I will have lunch with every once in a while. I called him and asked to him to read this thread and get his thoughts. I asked him beforehand to be very honest with me about what I posted, which I can attest to has historically always be very blunt and straight the point....never beating around the bush. I even promised him I would post his opinion of me no matter if he felt I was wrong or not. He said that he did not have a problem with my posts. He is very outspoken about the evil acts and his non support for fringe Islamic terrorist orgs and those who support them directly, financially, or indirectly by not speaking out against them. He even stated he would probably ask the same thing as even though these Radical Islam orgs are only a very small percentage of Muslims, their orgs have a long reach into many different areas. He said it best when he said "It would not be a question of character of the individual, but given the current realities of the situation in the world confirmation of independence from them, both ideologically (which hopefully is not even a question of a person in this position anyways) but probably more along the lines of financially."
    I just got a phonecall from Muhammad. He told me you're pulling a Tora Bora maneuver.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    You should be asking these questions from all candidates, not just Moslem ones. Are you not concerned that a catholic presidential candidate may have some ties to the IRA, or a Jewish presidential candidate may have Zionist beliefs?

    Surur
    I FULLY agree and always have as I already stated that same exact point if not in this thread in the one of the others. It is not exclusive. Just high profile.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Are you not concerned that a catholic presidential candidate may have some ties to the IRA.

    Surur
    That Catholic Presidential candidate will have to survive the tail-that-wags-the-Southern-GOP dog, aka Southern Baptist-based onslaught of Catholicism is of the Devil!
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    .............................................Again, there is no assumption of quilt or association..............
    Sorry, Hobbes, it just does not wash. Islamic terrorists are to Islam as the KKK or Nazis are to Christianity, so rare that no question should arise. The fact that it does arise in your head is a "prejudice."

    "No religious test" means no de jure test but it is also a good ethical test. In an ethical sense it means that nice people do not ask "one additional question" of a candidate based upon his religious affiliation.

    There is raw evil in your position. It is an evil that pervades history. It is an evil the Founders recognized and spoke to. It is time for all men of good will to disavow it.
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    That is why I like Judiasm - no zealous push to convert others.
    Being Jewish means being born from a Jewish mother. It's a genetic thing, not linked to a belief system, so trying to convert others doesn't make sense for Jews.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions