Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 161
  1. #41  
    For a guy who said he invented the internet, this doesn't come as a surprise!

    And it's 'In GOD we trust' not 'In Jesus we trust' ...
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Ben, how can I argue with someone who has a Harley and who lives in Hawaii!

    Cell, this is getting to you too! Why attack the messenger, attack the message instead!
  3. #43  
    Yes and that is why a lot of us do trust in what we have. God. Ben
  4. #44  
    Moose, I could not find the below response. So, here is mine. The presidential election is not based on popular majority. It is based on the electoral college. Also, please note that Gore wanted to exclude voting groups, Bush did not. The noise came from the democrats, not the repubicans. There have been past ocasions when the electoral college and popular votes have not agreed. This time though there were calls of improper conduct and frankly, that did not happen. What did happen is that the democrats tried to figure out what the voters in Palm Beach thought when they did the punch ballot and frankly, those votes should have been tossed out as unacceptable.

    In response to Treobk214's note, number 20, Christianity and Islamic extremism are totally different. One preaches love and understanding and the other murder. Pure and simple murder.



    Ben, I'm on my Treo thus the short response. Read my posts in this thread. I have said that Gore's statement was foolish. Furthermore, I did NOT take a political side in this thread but was asking for tolerance. Finally, I HAVE read the history of the last elections but I wanted to hear your side. Again, instead of providing data you ask me to search for it. Al Gore lost the elections (via electoral votes), I have never argued otherwise! But also, 500,000 more voters have voted for Al Gore. That's hardly a "loser" candidate in my book.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Christianity and Islamic extremism are totally different. One preaches love and understanding and the other murder. Pure and simple murder.
    Don't forget Christianity had a bloody and a brutal past. I'm sure Jesus never said you have to uproot civilizations, cultures to convert? Jesus never said Earth was flat? I'm sure scientific advancement would have been a lot more rapid if not for the interference from the Church.

    Remember no religion is inherently bad. It is how you interpret it that matters.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Consistency is the plus for Bush.
    Ben, I appreciate most of your comments. Kerry has not been consistent. But Bush can also be very inconsistent, and on important issues too.

    In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

    He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

    He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President **** Cheney came with him.

    Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

    Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

    A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

    "I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

    Personally, I think Kerry and Bush are both inconsistent.

    On a lighter note, I used to have a '74 sportster, and I still remember there was nothing like cruising down the coast with the wind in your face and a dull roar at your back. One of these days, I want to get a old panhead, restore it and then ride it on Sunday afternoons like today. Hawaii that is another dream for another day. Well there is always something to strive for in life!
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/12/2004 at 05:16 PM.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Ghandi was murdered by a Hindu extremist, for example.
    There's a very specific and insightful use of words in this sentence -- "Hindu extremist." In general, religious arguments are clashes of fundamentalism (which would include the fundamentalism of those who oppose religion in general), but hen we're looking at atrocities like the fall of Jerusalem to the First Crusade, the Armenian Genocide, the holocaust or September 11th, we're looking at the acts of extemists.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    We had to remain quiet and respectful, and there is nothing wrong with that.
    This is really cool. It seems that when this kind of situation causes problems, it's not simply a silent, individual activity that is in question. Instead, we find that people are taking that time to communicate their beliefs or, even worse, that the institution provides guidance in one form or another on how faith might be expressed. In the situation you described, the individual seems to have been left very much to his or her own decisions on how to spend that time. Even very weak suggestions by an authority figure in that situation can have a significant and disturbing impact on the group. As well, allowing individuals to take that time to discuss their faith can create a very "loud" distraction in what should be, as you described, a "quite and respectful" moment. Additionally, it's worth observing that often this situation doesn't work out how you described. A sad reflection on human behavior, yes, but not all that uncommon.

    Something gfunkmagic wrote in this discussion led me to do some reading on definitions of the word "religion." I found this bit of writing to be interesting:
    Two identifying features of most religions are that to some extent they all (a) require faith and (b) seek to organize and guide the thoughts and actions of their adherents.
    In the situation that Ben described, individuals are given space for their own expressions of faith. That situation works out very well when individuals are able to express themselves internally. Many religions specifically call for their adherents to express their faith outwardly, though, and then we start to hit problems.
  8. #48  
    I equate fundamentalism with extremism, there are more complex levels doubtless, but both believe they have a monopoly on truth.
    Don't forget heresy stems from reading the bible and interpreting it rigidly - the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa supporting apartheid for example.
    Bclinger, how you could possibly say that christian fundamentalism is about love and understanding and islamic fundamentalism is the opposite is beyond me. There are numerous examples of christian sects fighting each other over interpretations of the bible, the more fundamentalist the argument the more bloody it gets. And let's not forget that Jesus and his teaching is extremely important to the Islamic faith too.
    Animo et Fide
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I equate fundamentalism with extremism
    Actually, I feel the same way. Surprisingly, though, this viewpoint might actually be a kind of fundamentalism. ...Which is a little weird.

    I'm not sure how accepted this claim would be, but I'd say that while fundamentalism doesn't necessarily lead to extremism, you can't have extremism without fundamentalism.

    Take this, for example:
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    intolerance and prejudices against those of faith and religion in general.
    It's only possible to be opposed to "faith and religion in general" by, essentially, forming some kind of opinion on the expression of faith and the nature of religion. Simply by opposing a system of belief we wind up creating a system of belief. Well, that's usually what happens, anyway. Another way of putting this might be: What do you get when you're intolerant of intolerance and prejudiced against prejudice?

    Hey, look -- it's a circle! ...Or is that a spiral?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    This country is a Christian country. It was founded on those values.
    I am sure the founders had good intentions. But this did not prevent the killing of the indigenous people and the enslavement of others. Both are not really rooted in Christian beliefs. Some Muslims do bad things at times, and so do some Christians, Hindu, Jews and others.

    I agree that the Koran is probably more bellicose than the bible, at least it can be interpreted that way. OTOH "love your enemies", forgiving, and "turn the other cheek" are the cornerstones of the New Testament, but not really what Bush is preaching or how he is acting...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #51  
    Just proves my theory that organized religion is a blight on mankind.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    And it's 'In GOD we trust' ...
    Saying "In God we trust" most of the time means "we trust God is on our side"... I am sure at least Bush does not have the slightest doubt about that.

    The problem is, God apparently told the Methodist Bush a totally different story than he told the Catholic Pope, because the Pope does not agree at all with Bush's war in Iraq. This is strange because Methodists and Catholics obviously share the same God. Most likely the Pope claims to have the better connections to God, so he must be right. And of course the story God told the Muslims is entirely different, too. And why God promised Jerusalem both to Jews and to Muslims still is an open question altogether.

    This reminds me of the times when the Pope cried "Deus vult" (God wants it), and sent half of the Christian youth to Jerusalem in order to "free" it from the infidels and slaughter them. Well, in the end it seemed that either the Pope had been wrong, or God had changed his mind, because freeing the holy land didn't work out at all (lots of slaughtering of infidels nevertheless, on both sides). I don't know what e.g. the Gods of the Hindu tell their believers about the war in Iraq, maybe they try not to take sides?

    So to make a long story short: what is the point of introducing God into politics anyway? In the context of politics and conflicts, it just makes bad things worse: both sides get angry because the other side tells lies about which side God is on.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #53  
    clulup, I agree with your last post. You ask what is the point of introducing religion into politics? The point is that infusing religion into politics is a way to bind people more strongly to your secular ambitions. Yes it is devisive and people take sides, but if your political analysis tells you that your power base will show a net enhancement, then it becomes worthwhile. Religion is the most powerful tool of ambitious politicians, has been used time and again in history, and we never learn. It is an important tool for Bush. What he is doing with it is not the same as what muslim fundamentalists are doing, but he is using it no doubt.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/12/2004 at 09:23 PM.
  14. #54  
    This addresses a few of the above.

    There is no mainstream christian doctrine that advocates the killing of those of different beliefs. That cannot be said for some of the others. Islam is one of those that considers non-belivers as less than human. A person above spoke of Europe's tolerism - how wrong that is nowadays. Being a Jew in Europe means facing anti-semitismx throughout the continent. Saying that fundamentalist christians are extremists is wrong. I do not advocate your death. I do not advocate you being kicked out of your homeland because you are different. As for the pope, let me assure you that if the Vatiacan were struck by the killers of Islam, his attitude toward them would be 100% different. The USA was struck and now Russia. Russia before did not advocate a pre-emitive strike policy. Russia now says anytime and anyplace they feel there is a threat, they hold the RIGHT to strike first. The inconsistency of Bush is far from that of Kerry. Kerry straddles both sides of all issues; Bush does not. Kerry has a history of it that spans almost thirty years of it; Bush does not. Though Bush is Methodist, as I am, he does not force you to accept it as the only path available.

    My kids are Catholic and I take them to mass every Sunday. The parish priest tells us that he was on a trip to a muslim country and that every place a christian church was located, a mosque was across the street and that when they held their services, the mosque held them also - and that was always done on loud speakers.

    So, don't point the finger just one way. Ben
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    There is no mainstream christian doctrine that advocates the killing of those of different beliefs. That cannot be said for some of the others. Islam is one of those that considers non-belivers as less than human.
    Sure, who would would not say mainstream Christian doctrine is more tolerant than radical fundamentalist Islam. Mainstream Islam is a tolerant religion just like mainstream Catholic or Protestant. Maybe you were not trying to do this, I give you the benefit of the doubt, but trying to make mainstream Islam into something that it is not, that is devisive and intolerant.

    As far as the 30 year history of Kerry, well if you were in the Senate, trying to compromise to get bills passed, remove or add pork, you would have to change the way you vote too. Cheney did it, as well as everyone else. It is part of politics. Bush never served in the legistative branch, but if he did, I would hazard to say he would be changing his votes too, if you note my examples, Bush changed him mind quite often even as an executive. Taking all of this into account, I say it is not a significant difference between the two. Anyway, that is my two bits.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/12/2004 at 10:34 PM.
  16. #56  
    Bclinger, Islam does not consider non-muslims to be less than human, and you do not run into anti-semitism in Europe very easily except historically. Don't lie, please.
    Animo et Fide
  17. #57  
    During Kerry's 30 years in the Senate, he originated nothing of any importance that I can remember. We must also remember that he is the junior senator from Massachusetts and the senior senator has never been one to share glory with anyone. I must though say that he has gotten to yelling as loud as Gore and Dean. I was doing some typing when I heard Dean's yell and was shocked. We were recording it at that time and at its completion, I had to replay it. Shocked at the scream. It is hard to believe that the center democrat would ever support him and that is exactly why he lost out so early in the game. The same with Kerry - he does not represent middle America, be that person democrat or republican.

    Politicans change their minds, sure, but not substantial changes and not on a routine and often basis. Take the time to look into Kerry's speeches since he became the "defacto" candidate and you will be more than able to see the changes. He visits the car people in Detroit and he owns SUVs. He visits environmentalists and he does not own any at all. When eventually questioned, he says his family owns them. Damn, I am confused. He states he is for the envionrment but owns seven or something like that mansions and it from one account I read, each was fully staffed and kept operational - A/C running, blah, blah, blah. He uses a jet owned by his wife. The jet is privately owned and not a small corporate one. Why not use public transportation? He speaks to a Jewish group and supports the wall. He speaks with a muslim group and the wall has to go. He speaks with the Latino population in Texas and the border needs to be open. Damn, can he make up his mind?

    In addition, he has no respect for those people assigned to protect him (Secret Service personnel). On at least two ocassions he has lashed out against the men protecting him due to accidents he caused and they were involved in. When attacked, he comes on strong. When the Republican Convention ended, he got on the air and made such an *** of himself in his speech that it sounded like a temper tantrum. Do not question me, do not question my Viet Nam record, ... If he does not want anyone to question his Viet Nam record, then why does he always talk about it. Bluntly, his entire campaign is based on his Viet Nam record. His four month tour. His acknowledged war attrocities that he did not get punished for. His accusations that most servicemen in Viet Nam participated in the attrocities (which they damn well did not). And the lunies that came out of the wood work for the RNC - to think the democrats support them - it's frightening. And to close, the democratic party stopped representing my beliefs in the 90s.

    Mainstream Islam is not as tolerant as mainstream Protestant/Catholic. Though polls of mainstream muslims in this country show that the majority (70 something) do not support the killing done by Al Quida and like groups. What is disturbing though is the number that support it in earnest. What is disturbing is that this country does not yet have an effective manner to deal with terrorism. We babble of personal rights and yet we live under constant threat of another attack, an attack that can come by any number of means - chemical, biological, nuclear. When are we going to realize that we are vulnerable and have to take steps to secure ourselves. The left babbles about the Patriot Act and the threat it means to Americans. What they fail to say is its record and what it actually accomplishes.

  18. #58  
    "Attacks against Jews in Europe have sharply increased, says a report by a European anti-racism watchdog."

    PB...this headline appeared in BBC news website as recently as 6 months ago. The study singles out Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, where it says the rise in anti-Semitism has been of particular concern.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #59  
    Europe is not a happy party. The countries hate each other and cooperate only out of necessity. Tolerance there? Not at all. The recent social contributions of Europe - hatred and increased drug usage and crime, and unemployment. Yep, unemployment and to think Kerry wants us to follow the European model.
  20. #60  
    An increase in anti-semitism does not make it commonplace. And I do not recognise the europe I know in bclinger's frankly bizarre comments.
    Animo et Fide
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions