Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 121 to 137 of 137
  1. #121  
    Originally posted by John Nowak


    So an unidentified individual on an unidentified team may have said something unless we assume the newspaper screwed up?

    That's seriously unconvincing.
    I'm afraid I have to agree with you on that one especially since I cant find any other convincing articles in english...

    Strange since this is not the kind of newspaper to come up with stories...
    Either there is a very big hush hush policy going on (can you say conspiracy? ) or the news editor jumped the gun...
    Time will tell..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #122  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    I'm afraid I have to agree with you on that one especially since I cant find any other convincing articles in english...

    Strange since this is not the kind of newspaper to come up with stories...
    Either there is a very big hush hush policy going on (can you say conspiracy? ) or the news editor jumped the gun...
    Time will tell..
    Fair enough. However, I don't believe there's a newspaper in the world that doesn't "come up with stories" periodically. They're not nearly as good or careful as you seem to think. Hundreds of papers reported a "massacre" in Jenin which the UN has agreed never actually happened.

    I think there's very little outright dishonesty in news organizations, but there is an extraordinary amount of sloppiness, and a tendency to turn "At a meeting, Bill suggested we do X" into "They agreed to do X at a meeting."
  3. #123  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    To be fair, I think Matthew 6:5 is more about the motives behind prayer than anything else. Just because hypocrites pray in public doesn't mean that all who pray in public are hypocrites.
    Nor did I say it did. 'Twould be illogical.
    I'll bet the motivation behind saying that had more to do with lighting a fire under people and forcing them to consider their motives than simply banning public prayer.
    I don't consider it a ban on public prayer, but rather an admonition against ceremony over substance. "Look, I'm doing my mitzvah." "OK, public acknowledgement of how pious you are is your reward. G-d would consider it much more worthy of His acknowledgement if you did it in private without making it into a spectacle."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #124  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    ??? Don't quite understand what your saying here, unless that you plan on relying on yourself, not the Lord. OK fine. Thta's a choice he gave you.
    Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand what I'm saying there. You seem to be letting some biases about what you think I believe get in your way. I'm saying that neither you nor any other religious extremist (including atheists) gets to determine what my state of belief is. We should be beyond binary thinking by now. Unfortunately, computers seem to be leading us the other way.
    No, you're missing the point.
    I'm rubber and you're glue.
    The original decision to NOT have an "official" religion had to do with the Christian's not wanting to have any doctrinal oppresion in the US. How that decision got changed into "no religion at all" is interesting.
    Saying that there shall be no establishment of religion does not mean that the government cannot specify a specific doctrine of Christianity, even if some people originally interpreted it that way. It means the federal government cannot _constitutionally_ endorse _any_ religious view over another.
    Since the term "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution how does it now have the force of law?
    Because law is not just about passing a law via legislature. It's also about a court reviewing that law should it come up to review (like a lawsuit) to determine if it goes beyond the powers granted to that legislature. In the case of church and state, this was done in 1947 (not the 60s).
    No it isn't. The Pilgrims, et al were fleeing from religious presecution. They were highly religious themselves, and the thought of removing that belief from any part of their lives was unthinkable. They didn't want that same kind of religious intolerance to occur here - so no official religion. It was about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
    In effect, they are the same thing where the _state_ is concerned. You are free to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose (including none). Strange how some of the religious wish to uphold Jefferson's communications with the Danbury Baptists, and yet ignore things like his edited Bible and the things he said which led him to be mischaracterized as an atheist at various points.
    What? Are implying a correlation here?
    I'm not implying anything.
    The quote doesn't seem to support that.
    The quote only states that there was a correlation of principles. I'm stating that the same sort of correlation in principles exists with myself. It does not suffice as causality, though.
    I sense double-talk here.
    None coming from this direction. Look elsewhere.
    As to your belief I can't say.
    Belief isn't relevant in this context. Principles were all that was mentioned.
    Can you name anyone that's non-religious that spends anytime deeply researching this?
    Non-religious isn't the qualification. No vested interest in religion is. Most historians would fit the bill. AAMOF, there are even some _highly_ religious folk whose views dovetail quite neatly with mine.
    Does it discount the work done.
    The work? No, but it casts a different light on any conclusions drawn.
    How about reading all that a person writes, identifying the bias (everyone has one) and making a decision based on the facts presented? Because Einstien believed in God, does that make his work any less cogent?
    What's your source for thinking that Einstein believed in anywhere near the same sort of God which you imply? Have you actually ever read anything by him? Might I suggest Ideas and Opinions? There are several things he wrote which directly refute your assertion. AAMOF, my views on God and religion are quite close to his.
    Here's some non-religious men quoting about evolution. Will it change your mind about evolution, probably not:
    What's evolution have to do with this? I think it's a really cool car, though, and if I were in the market to upgrade, it would be on the top of my list. But seriously, what makes you think you grok what I think about the other evolution? That must be your 'science bias'.
    What does the religious background of the scholar have to do with the research, unless that you're implying that religous scholars are untrustworthy....
    If they think that Einstein believed in the God of any organized religion, and think that quotes with false dichotomies mean much of anything, then yes, they're untrustworthy.
    The same reason that women couldn't vote, because man is weak and prone to sin. I didn't say that those Christians (or any) were perfect.

    No, ignorant is not a willful state. Your decision falls under closed minded.
    What makes you think I'm closed minded? Let's have a little logic test. Which one of us can accept the possibility that there is a God? I can, and obviously you do. Of course, I also accept the possibility that there isn't one, or at least he/she/they/it is not worshipped/recognized by any organized religion. Can you? Which one of us is closed minded?
    How about read the facts (ie. the original texts, writings) that he has researched and ignoring his "religion-biased interpretations"? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What you seem to be ignoring is that everybody has a religious bias. Including yourself.
    Sorry, but my bias is apparently not what you think it is. Nearly all of the actual writings at wallbuilders, I've seen before. They still don't support the contention that there wasn't a desire for a wall between church and state. AAMOF, the Danburys were overjoyed because of Jefferson's election because they figured he'd keep one there.
    Are there any slaves left/allowed?
    No, but it took a _very_ non-Christian act by the government to acheive it, didn't it?
    ???? A scientist explained how a priest in Paris knew my first name although he had never met me, or anyone I knew, before?
    I'm sure one could. After all, John Edwards does similar things all the time. So do tent revivalists.
    A scientist explained how my friend Phil Herrick (he works in the hospital where he was to be treated) was cured of cancer (brain tumor disappears completely day before surgery)?
    God plays favorites? Must suck to be one of the countless people who don't deserve to have their cancer go into remission. Of course, I suppose the possibility that it was a misdiagnosis (along the lines of the woman who made the news recently because she received a double mastectomy when she had no breast cancer due to a lab mixup) probably wasn't considered since it miraculously disappeared. Did they cut him open before discovering it?
    Shouldn't you have said "if a scientist...", or is your bias showing?
    Nope. I've got history on my side.
    I wasn't commenting on the writings, but the ability for someone to get anything they want out of something, if they take it out of context. If I wanted to disprove the theory of evolution only using quotes from Darwin I could make a pretty good case (he was like most people and had a lot of doubts)- if I picked and chose quotes.
    Sorta like saying that Einstein believed in God?
    So, every US politician, who evere served, is venal and not capable of any true religious belief? How cynical and de-humanizing.
    No, I didn't say that. I said that prayer in that setting would be contrary to the sentiment behind Matthew 6:5. It's quite human.
    As I appear to be a little better read in the lives of our Founding Fathers, I will hold off commenting specifically. You keep saying you have read up on this subject Toby, but your comments make me think that you're not actually quite so well read.
    I could say the feeling's mutual at this point.
    It's appears useless to discuss this with you right now, as I don't know what you have read. [...]
    It probably is useless, but not because of that.
    Gotta go the Flu has me
    Hope you're feeling better by now.

    As a final thought, I'll close with a little humor:
    http://www.theonion.com/onion3902/skeptic_pitied.html
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #125  
    And here's some On-Topic Humor from James Lileks (I love him!!)

    the Backfence, Jan. 28, 2003

    Kelley
  6. #126  
    Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand what I'm saying there. You seem to be letting some biases about what you think I believe get in your way. I'm saying that neither you nor any other religious extremist (including atheists) gets to determine what my state of belief is. We should be beyond binary thinking by now. Unfortunately, computers seem to be leading us the other way.
    Yes I did and I agreed. You get to choose what and how you believe. God gave us the ability to choose what we believe in. We are all religious extremists. Including you and the guy at the convenience store down the block.

    Because law is not just about passing a law via legislature. It's also about a court reviewing that law should it come up to review (like a lawsuit) to determine if it goes beyond the powers granted to that legislature. In the case of church and state, this was done in 1947 (not the 60s).
    That is a recent interpetation of what was written a long time ago by men who would have stated that clearly if that's what they meant. How is it possible that they didn't live under that interpetation if they believed so fervently in it? Those Court decisions are no more than revisionism intended to 'right wrongs'. Christianity didn't graduallly work it's way into this nations government and public arena. It was there before the government and the government grew around it. It has been cut out generations later by people who don't like facing the fact that this nation was founded under Christian principles.

    Because law is not just about passing a law via legislature. It's also about a court reviewing that law should it come up to review (like a lawsuit) to determine if it goes beyond the powers granted to that legislature. In the case of church and state, this was done in 1947 (not the 60s).
    A liberal Supreme Court vs. a conservative Supreme Court. I predict that the law will be reinterpeted many times. I was writing about the original intent. You're talking about revisionism.

    In effect, they are the same thing where the _state_ is concerned. You are free to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose (including none). Strange how some of the religious wish to uphold Jefferson's communications with the Danbury Baptists, and yet ignore things like his edited Bible and the things he said which led him to be mischaracterized as an atheist at various points.
    What I am saying is that it is wrong to remove the Christian theology from it's rightful place in the history of our nation and from its place in its government. No person I know, religious or not, would say that any religion or doctrine can be viewed as the official religion of our country. Where the argument comes in to play is whether there should be any religion allowed in the government (or public schools, etc.). A very liberal Supreme Court has said "No!" effectively denying years of actuality. (Why do people swear on a bible when they testify in court? Just habit?)

    I agree about Jefferson. People on both sides place too much on him for their own purposes, ignoring his conflicting statements when it suits them. Jefferson was a very prolific writer and had much to say about a great deal of things, some of it interesting and some of it not so interesting. He had many theories about how a great many things SHOULD work.

    I am much more interested in what they Founders were talking about when they wrote the Constitution, not years later when they were looking back.

    I'm not implying anything....None coming from this direction. Look elsewhere.
    Sorry, my mistake.

    Non-religious isn't the qualification. No vested interest in religion is. Most historians would fit the bill. AAMOF, there are even some _highly_ religious folk whose views dovetail quite neatly with mine.
    I think that you are being a little naive if you think that there is anyone out there that is truly objective. Everybody carries their past. Historians are well noted for bringing their own baggage into their interpetations of what went on in the past. It is a human trait. That's why you always have to indentify the bias. There is ALWAYS a bias.

    What's your source for thinking that Einstein believed in anywhere near the same sort of God which you imply? Have you actually ever read anything by him? Might I suggest Ideas and Opinions? There are several things he wrote which directly refute your assertion. AAMOF, my views on God and religion are quite close to his.
    What I said was that he believed in God. I didn't imply any kind of God in particular. He said at various times that he was atheist and agnostic too. (I spent much of my twenties reading his less mathematical writings because I admire him.) I was replying to your comment about non-religious writers. I found the comment silly because everyone has religious beliefs. Because someone is more upfront about it doesn't preclude them from being any more truthful than someone who isn't upfront.

    What's evolution have to do with this? I think it's a really cool car, though, and if I were in the market to upgrade, it would be on the top of my list. But seriously, what makes you think you grok what I think about the other evolution? That must be your 'science bias'.
    Evolution has nothing particularly to do with this, other than most people already "know" that it's true or not because they believe it to be regardless of the scientific (or lack of) evidence. It was just an example. I don't have any idea what you believe in concerning evolution. I wasn't trying to imply that you thought anything in particular. (I do know that you think about the Evolution now )

    I don't have a 'science bias'. Science is cool. Too many people view science as a way to prove what they believe and have done so for years, ignoring any data that conflicts with what they believe. So I guess I have a 'bad science bias'.

    If they think that Einstein believed in the God of any organized religion, and think that quotes with false dichotomies mean much of anything, then yes, they're untrustworthy.
    What does Einstein have to do with anybody else? He was my example of a person who professed a belief in a God (although his view of God is vastly different than my own). Lots of scientists believe in a God because they see that the universe is too ordered not to have a creator of some sort.

    BTW I use religious to describe peoples view of reality, much as it's found in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster here):

    Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
    Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
    Date: 13th century
    1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
    2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
    3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
    - re·li·gious·ly adverb
    - re·li·gious·ness noun


    What makes you think I'm closed minded? Let's have a little logic test. Which one of us can accept the possibility that there is a God? I can, and obviously you do. Of course, I also accept the possibility that there isn't one, or at least he/she/they/it is not worshipped/recognized by any organized religion. Can you? Which one of us is closed minded?
    First that's not exactly a good refutation of you being closed minded about scientists/writers/historians that you perceive as being religious. In fact you side stepped the question.

    Moving on to your logic test and my belief.

    Well, I believe in my view of God because of what I have experienced in my life, certainly not because I was raised in a certain belief system. I came to my belief by being very open minded and doing a lot of research into many different viewpoints. I have belief in the Bible as a source of truth because it has been documented as being historically accurate by many (non-christians, christians, etc.).

    Hmmm. I believe in Jesus because the evidence is there and has not been successfully refuted.

    Hmmm. If I believe in Jesus as the only way a person can be redeemed (because that's what he said, as written down by several different sources), can I believe that there is another possibilty?

    (Well isn't that kinda of like saying I believe in gravity because I slipped off a ladder and got hurt because I fell to the ground, but maybe the next time I fall off the ladder I might not fall and get hurt- I'll just float?)

    I can imagine it, just like I can imagine anti-gravity - but I can't believe it because I haven't seen/experienced anything else that makes any rational sense.

    Is that close(d) minded?

    Sorry, but my bias is apparently not what you think it is. Nearly all of the actual writings at wallbuilders, I've seen before. They still don't support the contention that there wasn't a desire for a wall between church and state. AAMOF, the Danburys were overjoyed because of Jefferson's election because they figured he'd keep one there.

    Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State



    The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.
    Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

    Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

    Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

    And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

    Signed in behalf of the Association.

    Nehh Dodge
    Ephram Robbins The Committee
    Stephen S. Nelson




    Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state.
    On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    Gentlemen:

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

    Thomas Jefferson



    Read again carefully and repeat after me "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," (my emphasis). That quite clearly states to me that not only is there to be no state religion, but you cannot also prohibit, by law, someone from freely exercising their own religion. If a child prays out loud in school, how does that inhibit someone else from enjoying their own religion? There has been quite a bit of loud teeth gnashing by non-christians about Christians practicing their religion openly and many lawsuits specifically aimed at removing all traces of Christianity from public life.

    That's bias.

    No, but it took a _very_ non-Christian act by the government to acheive it, didn't it?
    How was the Emancipation Proclamation a "very_non_Christian act?

    I'm sure one could. After all, John Edwards does similar things all the time. So do tent revivalists.
    You've seen this, or have you watched it on TV? Actually neither of those disprove the teachings of the Bible. They both can support it. My 'miracle' in Paris was solely for me and simply answered for me whether or not God knew me personally.

    God plays favorites? Must suck to be one of the countless people who don't deserve to have their cancer go into remission. Of course, I suppose the possibility that it was a misdiagnosis (along the lines of the woman who made the news recently because she received a double mastectomy when she had no breast cancer due to a lab mixup) probably wasn't considered since it miraculously disappeared. Did they cut him open before discovering it?
    If you don't believe in him, how can you ask for His help? Jesus quite clearly stated that everyone is worthy of being saved, no exceptions. Don't blame God for not healing people, that sounds like that really whiney XTC song (Dear God ).

    Gee I suppose it could have been a misdiagnosis. There were only three doctors involved. They didn't cut him open. They did xrays, MRIs, blood tests. They scheduled surgery and found that it had disappeared when they took the pre-op xrays. Then they took another MRI. They re-took blood tests also.

    Nope. I've got history on my side.
    Nope, you've got opinion on your side, different thing.

    Sorta like saying that Einstein believed in God?
    Well He used the word God, not god, many times to describe something. Was he talking about my God? No. Did I try to quantify his God? No. I simply said that he believed in God.

    No, I didn't say that. I said that prayer in that setting would be contrary to the sentiment behind Matthew 6:5. It's quite human.
    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

    Prayer in what setting? He didn't say prayer was bad in any setting. He was talking about praying simply to be seen praying was not right. Your contention seems to be that they pray simply to be "seen of men". That must be your 'Political bias'.

    I don't believe that's why they chose to start each session off with a prayer. My contention is they did so because they prayed before undertaking any endeavor because they believed that to be the right thing to do before their God.

    The Bible is also quite clear on the necessity of praying together, in unison.

    Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

    I could say the feeling's mutual at this point.
    Boy I get cranky sometimes when I'm under the weather. That was mean spirited. Sorry Toby.

    It probably is useless, but not because of that.
    I actually have to disagree (I think I know why you think it's useless) simply because I enjoy debating with you. Because we hold differing views and I like you (at least the side I see here) I have to sharpen my thoughts into more coherent and logical order so I may communicate them. We may never change each others minds about where we are going separately, but we can enjoy (mostly) civil discourse and both be exposed to a differing view. You happen to be preety (I'm in Texas now, not a spelling mistake) good at this kind of thing.

    Wrong, but good.



    Hope you're feeling better by now.
    I am. It's 10-20 degrees below zero in Austerlitz right now, and I'm in Houston (50-60 degree difference).
    Last edited by BobbyMike; 01/28/2003 at 11:05 PM.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7. #127  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Nor did I say it did. 'Twould be illogical.
    Too true. Glad to see you're back, incidentally.

    Originally posted by Toby

    I don't consider it a ban on public prayer, but rather an admonition against ceremony over substance. "Look, I'm doing my mitzvah." "OK, public acknowledgement of how pious you are is your reward. G-d would consider it much more worthy of His acknowledgement if you did it in private without making it into a spectacle."
    Yeah, that certainly seems to be the most likely way of reading it.
  8. #128  
    Sorry to disappoint, but I really don't have the time to address everything, so in order to try and steer this train back onto the original track...

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [...] I actually have to disagree (I think I know why you think it's useless) simply because I enjoy debating with you. Because we hold differing views and I like you (at least the side I see here) I have to sharpen my thoughts into more coherent and logical order so I may communicate them. We may never change each others minds about where we are going separately, but we can enjoy (mostly) civil discourse and both be exposed to a differing view. You happen to be preety (I'm in Texas now, not a spelling mistake) good at this kind of thing. [...]
    I'm not sure you do understand why I think it's useless. I do find it funny that I can be both naive and yet cynical about some of the same things, though. I think you tend to use straw men with my arguments a bit too much. Don't assume that everyone who thinks there should be a bright line between church and state wants to outlaw religion. Don't attack arguments I never made and assign them to me. Now for my role of engineer...
    How was the Emancipation Proclamation a "very_non_Christian act?
    It wasn't but much like UN Resolution 1441 did nothing to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction which Saddam may or may not have, it did _nothing_ to free a single slave. Which one of us is being naive here, again?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #129  
    I think Sadam may have stolen the leather slip cover to my VPL, and the original Springboard snap cover too. Damn him.
  10. #130  
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2707761.stm

    "Eight European leaders have urged all of Europe to stand united behind America in its tough stance on Iraq.
    The premiers, including the UK's Tony Blair and those of Spain, Denmark and Italy, wrote in a joint article in The Times: "Our strength lies in unity." "

    Looks like the "rest of the world" which opposes US action is down to Canada, France, Germany, and Russia.
  11. #131  
    Originally posted by Toby

    I'm not sure you do understand why I think it's useless.
    Quite possible, I thought I did, but I guess I don't.

    I do find it funny that I can be both naive and yet cynical about some of the same things, though. I think you tend to use straw men with my arguments a bit too much.
    Cynical Naivism... I like the sound of that

    Quite possibly you're misunderstanding me. I was under the understanding that you thought that our Constitution had been written in such a way as to attempt to prevent religion/religious thought from entering/influencing our government (our public lives), ie. the "wall between Church and State". My contention is that since the majority of the men who devised and wrote the Constitution were Christians, that isn't true. They merely wanted to prevent a particular doctrine from becoming the official state religion (as they were mostly descendents of people who had fled such states).

    Don't assume that everyone who thinks there should be a bright line between church and state wants to outlaw religion. Don't attack arguments I never made and assign them to me.
    I never said that you, nor anyone else wants to outlaw religion. I do believe that Secular Humanists want to revise historical facts and do so with impunity in our public schools. (If anyone thinks that's hooey, find a current high school textbook on American History and see what's missing and/or distorted.)

    I would never catorigize you as a Secular Humanist.

    Now for my role of engineer...It wasn't but much like UN Resolution 1441 did nothing to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction which Saddam may or may not have, it did _nothing_ to free a single slave. Which one of us is being naive here, again?
    I'm quite aware that the 13th Amendment did more to free slaves than the EP, just as I'm aware that most people view the Civil War as solely being about the issue of slavery (many on the Union side had little, if any, moral qualms about slavery). But the EP was an important first step towards the end of slavery and tied the issue firmly to the Civil War (and I think most importantly, allowed black men to fight in the Union Army - allowing several hundred thousand men to join the Union Army). To say that it did_nothing_to free a single slave is not quite true. It was a vital first step (not literally the first step) that allowed the journey to continue.

    Also the UN is pretty toothless by itself. Any resolution that it passes has no real, immediate, effect on anyone who doesn't want to listen. To get a nation to comply completely to an UN resolution against their will, requires another, bigger, nation to ram it down their throats. If a nation disagrees with a UN resolution, they just don't supply troops/funds.

    The EP was an Executive Order from the President/Commander-in-Chief of a Nation that was under war and had immediate effect and force of law on the Union side. All parties on the Union side complied almost immediately. It did what it was intended to do.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  12. #132  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Cynical Naivism... I like the sound of that
    I didn't even bring up the fact that your argument about bias rests on moral relativism ('oh, everyone's biased about something, in a way').
    Quite possibly you're misunderstanding me. I was under the understanding that you thought that our Constitution had been written in such a way as to attempt to prevent religion/religious thought from entering/influencing our government (our public lives), ie. the "wall between Church and State".
    No, religious thought has the same place in our government as any other part of our elected representatives consciences. The wall between Church and State is to protect both of them from undue influence of the other.

    The Church needs to be protected from undue influences of other religions (or secularism). This is why Bush's faith-based initiatives are wrong. When a church receives money from the state, it must abide by any other restrictions which the state places on any institution which receives that money. It then can't discriminate in hiring practices even if doing so would violate its own morals.

    The State needs to be protected from undue influences of any religion since it cannot choose favorites according to the powers granted to it. And sorry if you disagree with this, but this includes endorsing even Christianity generally over other religions which its citizens may or may not hold. Religious freedom does not mean any form of Christianity you wish to choose. It means religious freedom, period. This includes the freedom to worship nothing. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
    My contention is that since the majority of the men who devised and wrote the Constitution were Christians, that isn't true.
    Your contention is wrong, and cynical (since it assumes that a Christian by definition cannot comprehend how anyone could be anything other than a Christian).
    They merely wanted to prevent a particular doctrine from becoming the official state religion (as they were mostly descendents of people who had fled such states).
    Then they must not have known anything about how to write or say what they meant in forming a government. They didn't say that the government couldn't tell someone how to be a Christian. They said that the government couldn't tell you what to do about religion in any respect.
    I never said that you, nor anyone else wants to outlaw religion.
    Yes, in effect you did.
    I do believe that Secular Humanists want to revise historical facts and do so with impunity in our public schools. (If anyone thinks that's hooey, find a current high school textbook on American History and see what's missing and/or distorted.)
    Which is why sites like wallbuilders.com and others exist, so they can revise historical facts to suit their own agendas. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that bias only means that someone's conclusions will be distorted. I'm saying that it also means their facts can be distorted since they're not necessarily telling the _whole_ truth.
    I would never catorigize you as a Secular Humanist.
    Even if you did, I wouldn't consider it the insult which you might.
    I'm quite aware that the 13th Amendment did more to free slaves than the EP,
    No, the 13th only freed slaves in the Union territories.
    just as I'm aware that most people view the Civil War as solely being about the issue of slavery (many on the Union side had little, if any, moral qualms about slavery).
    No matter what the war was about, ultimately the defeat of the Confederate States of America was what freed the slaves in those territories.
    But the EP was an important first step towards the end of slavery and tied the issue firmly to the Civil War (and I think most importantly, allowed black men to fight in the Union Army - allowing several hundred thousand men to join the Union Army). To say that it did_nothing_to free a single slave is not quite true. It was a vital first step (not literally the first step) that allowed the journey to continue.
    Glad to see you're so concerned about revisionism.
    Also the UN is pretty toothless by itself. Any resolution that it passes has no real, immediate, effect on anyone who doesn't want to listen. To get a nation to comply completely to an UN resolution against their will, requires another, bigger, nation to ram it down their throats. [...]
    And you're still missing the parallel?
    The EP was an Executive Order from the President/Commander-in-Chief of a Nation that was under war and had immediate effect and force of law on the Union side. All parties on the Union side complied almost immediately. It did what it was intended to do.
    Have you ever actually read it? It didn't free a single slave on the Union side because it didn't apply to the Union. It applied only to:
    Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
    But yes, it did what it was intended to do, give Lincoln a moral and legal justification to wage full out war on the CSA.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #133  
    The last time I checked the world had over 150 odd countries not just 12. The British people are opposed to any war with Iraq. Heck even the American people are getting hesitant. The Bush administration has yet to show the world why there is an immediate need to attack Iraq. All I have seem so far is hot air, rhetoric and sound bites.


    Originally posted by John Nowak
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2707761.stm

    "Eight European leaders have urged all of Europe to stand united behind America in its tough stance on Iraq.
    The premiers, including the UK's Tony Blair and those of Spain, Denmark and Italy, wrote in a joint article in The Times: "Our strength lies in unity." "

    Looks like the "rest of the world" which opposes US action is down to Canada, France, Germany, and Russia.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  14. #134  
    I didn't even bring up the fact that your argument about bias rests on moral relativism ('oh, everyone's biased about something, in a way').
    Eveyone is biased, what does that have to do with moral relativism? I wasn't saying anything about "right or wrong", just that everyone has a bias. Identifying someones bias makes it easier to sift the facts out of what they have written.

    No, religious thought has the same place in our government as any other part of our elected representatives consciences. The wall between Church and State is to protect both of them from undue influence of the other.
    So mabye we should rewrite the Declaration of Independence to exclude any reference to God and our Creator? Or, do you believe that was just window dressing and is OK?

    The Church needs to be protected from undue influences of other religions (or secularism). This is why Bush's faith-based initiatives are wrong. When a church receives money from the state, it must abide by any other restrictions which the state places on any institution which receives that money. It then can't discriminate in hiring practices even if doing so would violate its own morals.
    The Church (and any other religion) doesn't need to be protected from any other religion (or secularisms) influences. They stand on their own merits. They should also not enjoy special privileges. Religions of all kinds do need to be separate from governmental business. I agree with what you've said about Bush's faith based initiatives. I'd also say that Bush's faith based initiatives are wrong in the same way that giving money to any entity enjoying Not-For-Profit status is. The government shouldn't be doing it. Regardless of whether or no they are more effective than the other progams, but than I also think the government has no business funding most of the subsidies and welfare programs that it currently does. It's almost a cliche in itself how quickly the government can waste money and be ineffective at the same time when it starts to regulate charitable/social programs. I think that it's an area in which religious groups and charitable groups should be doing the work.

    Dedicated volunteers seem to much better suited to the task than bureaucratic leviathans.
    The State needs to be protected from undue influences of any religion since it cannot choose favorites according to the powers granted to it. And sorry if you disagree with this, but this includes endorsing even Christianity generally over other religions which its citizens may or may not hold. Religious freedom does not mean any form of Christianity you wish to choose. It means religious freedom, period. This includes the freedom to worship nothing. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
    I'm quite aware of that and I agree with this statement. I don't believe it is right, or desirable, to force anyone towards any rleigion, or lack of a religion.

    I diagree with the notion that it's OK to limit where and when someone can practice their religious beliefs. If a public school student tries to pray out loud in a public school they can and will be suspended. If a principal posts the Ten Commandments in his school he can be fired. It's against the law in many states to teach a differing view of how the world, and mankind, came into existence. (It's ridiculous that someone would have to sue to get a differing view put into a curriculum.)

    I believe that people are much more intelligent and discerning than governmental bureaucracies/committees, etc. and should be given back their freedoms that have been eroded.

    Your contention is wrong, and cynical (since it assumes that a Christian by definition cannot comprehend how anyone could be anything other than a Christian).
    No, it isn't. Once again you have brought a bias into one of my statements. They believed that the majority of the nation would always be Christian, but they didn't want to exclude anyone based on religious belief. To believe otherwise would deny their own belief.

    Then they must not have known anything about how to write or say what they meant in forming a government. They didn't say that the government couldn't tell someone how to be a Christian. They said that the government couldn't tell you what to do about religion in any respect.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    That's what they said. It's very clear. I have been referring to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part which certain people like to ignore when they interpet the Constitution and it's amendments in it's regard to religion.

    I have never, and will never state that Christianity should be the only religion allowed. I have been saying that you can, and should, keep religion out of governmental decisons/laws, but you can't keep it out of the public arena. There is a difference there.

    Yes, in effect you did.
    I've been talking about controlling peoples ability to practice their religious beliefs, not outright 'outlawing religion'. That was your phrase. You misunderstood what I said.

    Which is why sites like wallbuilders.com and others exist, so they can revise historical facts to suit their own agendas. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that bias only means that someone's conclusions will be distorted. I'm saying that it also means their facts can be distorted since they're not necessarily telling the _whole_ truth.
    Laboring under the delusion? Kind of a cliche'.

    I think you're response shows your bias quite clearly. It must be impossible for a person to disagree with you then. To do so would mean they would have to lie by ommission, etc. Since Barton always gives out complete sources of where he gets his original quotes, it's quite easy to read the entire document in context, Something that he encourages.

    Your view of what a Christian is seems to differ greatly from what mine is. Maybe I'm naive.

    Even if you did, I wouldn't consider it the insult which you might.
    I don't.

    No, the 13th only freed slaves in the Union territories.
    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Um, yes I'm aware of that. Since it happened in Dec. 1865 it did in fact do more to free slaves. It legally ended slavery in this country.

    No matter what the war was about, ultimately the defeat of the Confederate States of America was what freed the slaves in those territories.
    I would have to agree as the 13th Amendment now could apply to the entire Union as a whole, and could be enforced (levelly- is that a word?)

    Glad to see you're so concerned about revisionism.
    ?? Irony? Cryptic irony at that....

    [QUOTE]
    Have you ever actually read it? It didn't free a single slave on the Union side because it didn't apply to the Union. It applied only to:

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    But yes, it did what it was intended to do, give Lincoln a moral and legal justification to wage full out war on the CSA.[QUOTE]

    Yes I have read it. I also know that the war had been going on for three years. Lincoln needed no "moral and legal justification to wage full out war" as that was already happening.

    And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

    And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

    And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

    (my emphasis)

    That's the part of the Proclamation that I felt had the most effect. I wasn't referring to slaves being freed in the Union when I said
    "All parties on the Union side complied almost immediately. It did what it was intended to do." (I do think that calling it The "Emancipation" Proclamation is a bit misleading.) The EP was a shot across the bow of the Confederacy psyhcologically, but it also had the practical effect of adding somewhere between 190,000-300,000 (some say 200,00) men to the Union side.

    That's why I rejected your parallel as not quite fitting the bill. It's flawed in other ways too, but I don't really think that it's important because I understood what you were getting at. I just didn't/don't think it fit the situation.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #135  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The last time I checked the world had over 150 odd countries not just 12.
    And I'm sure there will never be enough to make you stop yelling about 'Unilateral' America.

    How many countries in Europe oppose the war? Six?

    Originally posted by yardie
    The British people are opposed to any war with Iraq. Heck even the American people are getting hesitant.
    Haven't you noticed that in the last decade or so, virtually every major national election has run to the right of what people expected?

    And every time, the media says how flabbergasted and surprising this is.

    I can't imagine why.

    Originally posted by yardie

    The Bush administration has yet to show the world why there is an immediate need to attack Iraq. All I have seem so far is hot air, rhetoric and sound bites.
    Well, you haven't been listening.
  16. #136  
    I have my ears to the ground on this issue... and I have yet to see any gun much less a smoking gun.

    The countries that are supporting the U.S's position are trying to curry favour with Washington. Tony Blair said as much when he said something a few days back to the effect that Britain's national interests are imbedded in Britain being the U.S's closest ally. But hey..cant blame Blair for his honesty. Wish Bush would do the same and let the world know why a war in Iraq is necessary.


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    And I'm sure there will never be enough to make you stop yelling about 'Unilateral' America.

    How many countries in Europe oppose the war? Six?



    Haven't you noticed that in the last decade or so, virtually every major national election has run to the right of what people expected?

    And every time, the media says how flabbergasted and surprising this is.

    I can't imagine why.



    Well, you haven't been listening.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  17. #137  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I have my ears to the ground on this issue... and I have yet to see any gun much less a smoking gun.
    Guns don't smoke until after they've been fired.

    Originally posted by yardie

    The countries that are supporting the U.S's position are trying to curry favour with Washington.
    And there isn't the slightest possibility that the leaders of Spain, Britain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Albania, Slovakia, and Australia might be doing this because the UN has been sitting helplessly on this issue for eleven years?
    Originally posted by yardie

    Tony Blair said as much when he said something a few days back to the effect that Britain's national interests are imbedded in Britain being the U.S's closest ally.
    Got a link to that?

    Originally posted by yardie

    But hey..cant blame Blair for his honesty. Wish Bush would do the same and let the world know why a war in Iraq is necessary.
    Oh, gee... maybe because Hans Blix has made it very clear that Iraq is not co-operating? Maybe because diplomacy has had twelve years?

    And speaking of economic interests, I wonder who Saddam's best trading partners might be.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Posting Permissions