You're cracking me up - very funny!Quote:
He's a good lookin' guy though isn't he? Got a real pretty mouth....
Printable View
You're cracking me up - very funny!Quote:
He's a good lookin' guy though isn't he? Got a real pretty mouth....
Does Anita really have to read through all this garbage?
Hi Anita!
Garbage? Man this is classic stuff. Three and a half years from now when the economy's humming along, there's a hydrogen pump at every gas station and Bush is spending all his vacation time in France where they love Americans (because things worked out so well with the Middle East peace accord of 2006) you'll look back on this thread and think "What was I so worried about? It all worked out in the end! I think I'll vote for Condi and Hillary!"
OK guys I gotta go. My girlfriend just called and said there's a spider as big as a tennis ball in her basement. If I don't get over there quick and rescue it, it's a goner. It's been fun chatting with you. Have a good weekend!
:)
Special thanks to slowpro48, Jumbo, and especially t2p.
The only one thing that I would like to say is that:
1. we didnt really liberate Afganistan, we have somewhat liberated Kabul, the capital by giving them as much alcohol and money as they need. Every day in Afganistan in villages and smaller cities us military dump trucks are giving away money and boose to all who wish for it to keep the peace.
2. The Taliban are still feeling well, they make about 80% of the Worlds heroin supply with their friends Mujahadeen.
3. Us pilots try not to fly over Afghanistan unless they really have to because there are thousands of US made stinger missiles throughout Afghanistan.
4. The weapons for money exchange program has been somewhat successfull, a couple weeks ago some Afghani dude brought in a dump truck of Soviet and US made RPG's.
5. When Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they built schools, markets, hospitals dambs, communicatoins and other things. Their forces were spread throughout Afghanistan, US forces are mostly in Kabul. In the 80's the Soviet Union engaged the crasiest fanatical Islamists. Those Islamists were poorly trained and funded until the US came in and helped them out with weapons, training and money. The Taliban and Usama gang were trained by the CIA, this shouldnt be surprising to anyone. However those crasies dont know how to do anything except pray, grow heroin, point and shoot. THey dont know how and dont want to do anything else. It was going to be only so long until they turned on the US because they need someone to struggle with.
US Populatoin ~300Mil
Muslim Population in Middle East: ~ 800Mil
When Joseph Stalin had to decide after WWII wether he would attack China beacuse of the Manchurian problem or try to join it under the communist cause peacefully he asked math professors to do some research for him. They counted that if they used every single machine gun in the Red Army and started shooting at a line of Chinese people, the line would reproduce and there would be no ending to it.
Now About Iraq.
Not much to say here, except for a couple things.
1) I have a lot of respect for elder Bush. When he had the world behind him in 91 and not even the Soviets would say anything, the coalition troops were already in the steps to Iraq he decided to invade BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXIT PLAN!
2)Russia has Chechnya , we have Iraq. Similar and different at the same time. Both places Superpowers are fighting Islamists. They have been fighting for 10 years to keep their country in one piece. What are we fighting for? Black gold?
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Iraq didnt have WMD's but other countries do or about to have them and they hate US: Iran, North Korea and other axes of evil. Let me remind you that they ahve not signed the Nuclear non-preliferation treaty meaning they can sell nuclear bombs to anyone: Usama, Zarqawi or Homer Sompson for that matter. One of those explodes over Washington DC, LA, NY, Boston, we'r done.
If we win in Iraq are we going to Syria, N.Korea, Iran next?
Which I doubt Doctors without borders have pulled out of Iraq saying quote: "becoming too unstable" Our coalition is getting smaller and smaller.
Now, hang on there almost the end. We have 2/3 of our military in Iraq. It has gotten so bad that we are pulling troops from Germany and N.Korea and National Gard is getting more and more involved. Peoples pay is getting cut back and tours of duty are being extended. Less and less people wanna be in the military since it's not worth having your brains shot off over 50 Grand for college. .
So, with our military so stretched out, what happens if we get attacked by an unforseen enemy?
:homer: have you got any different globus?:?:
we have only have 2 inches of top soil left...........
the corn flakes are falling off the pop tarts too....
Bush fockers......he is in bed and has been with everyone responsible for the bad ****e going on in this country...it will get far worse now with him on his Nazi stand with the power of Hitler...just wait.
and while your in your misery...he will continue to be on his vacation..but as he says "You would be amazed at what you can get done with a telephone and a fax machine"
if you voted for Bush..that's ok, because I vanceled your vote out;Dp; I want nothing to do with Bush, except end his reign.
which only close to being outdone by his father.
I know I'm late getting back to the party, but back when y'all were talking religion there was an undercurrent to the discussion that it was the atheists/agnostics/etc vs the christains.
As if there were really only two choices - God or No God.
It reminded me of a somewhat famous philosophical argument known as "Pascal's Wager" named for Blaise Pascal, the mathematician. In very simple terms, Pascal's Wager goes thus, "If there is a God, you gain everything by believing in Him. If there is no God, you lose nothing by believing in him."
The big problem with all such arguments, including the quote from CS Lewis and particularly any attempt to define absolute right and wrong by Christian dogma is that there is a third choice, or rather an almost infinite number of other choices - Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, even Chinese folk religion to name a few of the ones with larger numbers of adherents. Even within the umbrella of Christianity there is signficant divergence of opinion about the details - for example, Mormons differ significantly from Catholics.
So, I thought it might interesting to get a global perspective on the demographics of religion:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.gif
More info, including the projection that by 2025 the proportion of Christians will have decreased to about 25% with Islam making up for the majority of that loss, is available by clicking on the image
Random CS Lewis factoid: Most people don't know this, but Treebeard the Ent in Tolkein's Lord of the Rings was intended to be a cariacature of CS Lewis.
And finally, whatever faith you believe in (or not believe in for the aetheist types), it's called "faith" for a reason. Faith is something you believe in but can not prove. Consquently, any arguments or justifications based on faith can not prove anything either. Such arguments can convince or sway people, but ultimately it all boils down to believing in the unprovable.
Wow, just when the conversation started to get intelligent again (about three pages back), we've digressed into pointless chatter again (except for maybe Wyrrej's post). Someone mentioned something about it being hypocritical for someone to say closed-minded people should have closed mouths. I think the point is that it's not interesting or a valuable use of your time to listen to close minded people because they will rarely have any truth or valuable insight to share with you. If they are too close minded to consider your opinion, then how could they possibly be enlightened about anything?
I also feel compelled to clear up a few things:
Quote:
Originally posted by valenki
1. we didnt really liberate Afganistan, we have somewhat liberated Kabul, the capital by giving them as much alcohol and money as they need. Every day in Afganistan in villages and smaller cities us military dump trucks are giving away money and boose to all who wish for it to keep the peace.
Dude, what are you talking about? Most Muslims don't drink alcohol, and 99% of the military is forbidden from drinking while deployed. The people in the villages are more likely to chew Nestar or smoke opium. The only people I ever saw drinking were a handful of civilian employees in a single small restaurant opened in Kabul. I've never seen any money "given away".
5. When Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they built schools, markets, hospitals dambs, communicatoins and other things. Their forces were spread throughout Afghanistan, US forces are mostly in Kabul.
The last half of that statement is simply not true. There is no military base inside Kabul.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Iraq didnt have WMD's but other countries do or about to have them and they hate US: Iran, North Korea and other axes of evil. Let me remind you that they ahve not signed the Nuclear non-preliferation treaty meaning they can sell nuclear bombs to anyone: Usama, Zarqawi or Homer Sompson for that matter. One of those explodes over Washington DC, LA, NY, Boston, we'r done.
WMD's include chemical and biological weapons which Iraq did have. It was not unreasonable to think that Iraq might also possess (or be attempting to aquire) nuclear capabilities. However, it's unlikely that one would explode over a U.S. city because they don't possess the long range delivery systems necessary for that. Nuclear weapons in the middle east would be a much greater threat to other countries in the middle east, or in Western countries in the form of "dirty bombs".
VICTORY- VICTORY- VICTORY
In the words of my grandchildren
SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET- AWESOMMMME
This in no way should interrupt your right to WHINE- WHIMPER- or
FLEE TO CANADA.
Bob F
interminable onslaught of offal
When I made my first post I made it clear that I didnt wish to empose my opinion on enyone and didnt expect my opinion to be craped on either.
Let me clear something up also. Not all Afghans are rightious Muslims. Some of them started drinking After other cultures brought alchoholism to them; British occupiers then Russian, Americam ext. Also, I had heard this fact personally from someone who was there soon after the US invasion and saw this. If you do your research you will find out that in Iran this is a big problem but drinking is underground.
Also, A nuke can be transported on a passanger or commercial airplane and triggered in the sky over a city where it will do most damage or in a container on a ship, if it would be triggered in the water it will affect a mutch larger area.
Now about Nukes and WMD in Iraq. They did use biologicall artillery shells against their own people and might have had more but turns out they didn't. NEXT AND MOST IMPORTANT Sadam never had nukes, he wanted to make them in the 80's but in 86 Israelis destroyed his nuclear plant and refinery before he had a chance to make nukes.
YOU DO NOT NEED A NUKE TO MAKE A DIRTY BOMB. This is a fact. You can go to your local hospital and find radioactive materials and plenty of them stuff them in a shoe bomb with a grenade and you have a radioactive bomb. The worst about dirty bombs as they are known is that they will poison the environment around them for a long time.
5 regimes MUCH more dangerous than Sadam's:
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkmenistan
Belarus
Why? All of them have WMD's in one form or another widely available on the black market. N.Korea even has a missile capable to reach the US West Coast. Yet the US Government chose Iraq.
I am not for or against Bush or Kerry, I am speaking facts as I see them, you might see them differently.
So please don't piss on my opinion I have my own reasons to make conclusions. I appreciate people who will read this.
Three reasons why Texas supported Bush:
Oil production (don't bite the hand.......), guns (you can have my gun when..............damn yankees :) ). A growing contingent of immigrants from south of the border who threw their support his way.
-------
Yes, Iraq did have wmd's. Guess how we know this. ;) As was mentioned earlier our past international meddling has and will probably continue to come back and bite us in the arse.
-------
Condi Rice? Loved her method of avoiding answering questions while being deposed by the congressional committee. Kinda reminded me of the good ol' contra days.
--------
Hey, all the pols at the top of the food chain are long ago bought and paid for. In our recent senate race it was mentioned that it cost a cool $10 mil just to get name recognition for Alan Keyes.
Where's an honest, average American gonna come up with a disposable down stroke like that?
All we can do is hope our elected officials don't screw up too badly, and if they do, get rid of them.
I'll have to side with the U.K.'s "Daily Mirror" on this one.
Download the front page here:
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/M...C328EC0000.pdf
Have a nice day, my friends :) !
I've been staying pretty much out of this conversation, but that that pie chart is rediculous.
Taking into consideration that China and India contain 2/5ths of the world's population, how could that chart be right?
-- John
Mmm lots of great posts, from republicans, democrats and everybody else, lots of surprising posts, and some less nice ones!
But I think, that for such a "sensitive" topic, this forum members did quiet well..thumbs up for that!
I was a bit disappointed by some sentences though, words which I think don't belong in this era, and definetely not in a forum which is dedicated to such a progressive vehicle.... :(
Homosexuality is....wrong???Quote:
I think that Homosexuality is wrong and I support laws that protect the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The gay community never asked for church weddings..just normal weddings. Marriage is not a sacred institute, it's man made.Quote:
I just find it ironic that the homosexual community wants a ceremony of God to be applied to their union when the Bible clearly states that it is an abomination. If they do not believe in God, then why do they want to use one of its sacraments???
It's a symbol of two people who love each other , and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
Marriage has advantages, provided by the state and society, tax, loans etc.
Denying gay people the right to marry, is denying their existence.
They were born gay, like some people are born caucasian, others dark...nothing they you or anybody else can do about.
Not less than 50 years ago, it was found unacceptable for an coloured person to marry a white person..now in 2004 it's normal.....it's called evolution of humanity and acceptence!
In the same matter of thinking then...if some group of man ganged up on your niece, you'd blame all male hetero sexuals?Quote:
Also, I was involved personally with a gay community in Portland, Oregon (one of the reasons I left). They ganged up on my nephew and convinced him that he was gay and sexually assaulted him several times. Before this time he was a little feminine (but so was I when I was his age) and liked to dress nicely. That does not make one gay... What they did was wrong. If someone chooses to be gay of their own free will and volition - then fine - but why do you have to attack someone in a group? They even told him that they were "recruiters!!!"
"God created all men equal...but some more than others"
Quote:
Abortion - hmm - killing a baby is ok because??? Pro-choice? Couching murder in friendly terms does not change the nature of the crime. How would you have liked it if someone had terminated your life before you were born? What about the baby's choice? Did you ask the baby before killing it? If you do not want to have a baby, practice abstinence. I have personally known women who were convinced to perform abortions and they went slightly cuckoo afterwards...
Nothing is black and white like that:
What right has a person, to tell a twelve year old girl not to abort her baby?
What right has a person, to tell a raped woman that she has to keep that baby?
What right has a person, to tell a..... shall I continue?
Yeah the Bush administration and many of its followers follow the bible, unfortunately they love to skip parts, especially the new testament, for their own convenience and political agenda.
Everytime that man, takes the word god in his mouth. the insult spreads...
Your gay, hetero, transexual, transvestite, euthanasia, save well thought out abortians loving minister,
Dutchie
Several good well thought out points Dutchie.
I agree, it really irks me that some religious types (some) seem to want to claim marriage the institution as part of their judeo-christian religion exclusively. This goes to the heart of many of their other arguments as well. They are so deep in a forest of dogma and unflinching faith that some (some again) of them can't separate ideas and customs from their belief systems. They won't even often admit that their religion IS a belief system.
And just because people are in the majority (if they are) doesn't mean they should be able to interfere with another group's pursuit of happiness (if it is not hurting anyone) simply because they feel it is "wrong".
The courts (I beleive)should protect the rights of the minority in these instances, striking down laws the majority passes that discriminate against minority lifestyles that are not hurting anything, except perhaps some folks idea about what american culture should be.
If so called activist courts hadn't stood up boldly for minority rights in the 50s and early 60s the whole civil rights movement would have never gotten rolling. We would probably still have governments in the south passing laws discriminating against blacks.
You would think everyone would want our homosexual citizens to be faithful, monogomous, responsible homeowners and raise families. Encouraging marriage would surely encourage healthy settled families.
In my mind this would only benefit communities. I have two sets of gay neighbors and they are probably the best, most decent citizens on my block. ;Dp;
Valenki -
The first part of my post wasn't directed against you at all. My apologies if it appeared that way. I'm certainly not arguing with your opinion, just disputing a few of your facts.
Again, I'm not into pissing on people's opinions. I would just prefer to have an intelligent discussion and it's almost laughable how much worthless chatter keeps getting inserted into what could be a good topic of discussion.Quote:
Originally posted by valenki
Let me clear something up also. Not all Afghans are rightious Muslims. Some of them started drinking After other cultures brought alchoholism to them; British occupiers then Russian, Americam ext. Also, I had heard this fact personally from someone who was there soon after the US invasion and saw this. If you do your research you will find out that in Iran this is a big problem but drinking is underground.
True, not all Afghans are righteous Muslims. However under the Taliban regime, many were forced to follow the teachings whether they agreed with them or not. There may be a growing community of underground drinkers with their newfound freedom, but the military certainly isn't bringing in "dump trucks full of money and booze".
Also, A nuke can be transported on a passanger or commercial airplane and triggered in the sky over a city where it will do most damage or in a container on a ship, if it would be triggered in the water it will affect a mutch larger area.
Good point...
5 regimes MUCH more dangerous than Sadam's:
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkmenistan
Belarus
Why? All of them have WMD's in one form or another widely available on the black market. N.Korea even has a missile capable to reach the US West Coast. Yet the US Government chose Iraq.
Are you suggesting that these countries should be next on the hit list? Bush certainly has his eyes on the first two. However, I don't think the only factor being considered is whether they have access to black market WMD. I believe more important is how likely they are to use them in the near future. Sadaam had already shown his willingness to use WMD, as well as invade neighboring countries. This is what pushed him to the top of the list, as well as him thumbing his nose at the international community by denying access to the U.N. Inspectors.
Marriage is not man-made - it is founded in religion. In the distant past, marriages did not provide tax breaks. There were morals back then and if two people were together and had a child, that child was termed a bastard. If you do not believe in God and therefore do not believe in chastity, adultery or fornication, there is no need for marriage. Please do some research and you will find that the original ceremony was a covenant between two people and God. Man has taken this ceremony and secularized it.
I did not condemn all homosexuals when I talked about the recruiters in Portland. I have a very good friend that is gay and he never attempts to recruit others. I know there are good and bad in all groups of people. I also have another gay friend who is a performer on Broadway and he is also very kind and never forces himself on another.
Abortion makes people see things crazy, somehow...
**************************
What right has a person, to tell a twelve year old girl not to abort her baby?
**************************
The same right that person has to tell a twelve year old girl not to murder her brother.
**************************
What right has a person, to tell a raped woman that she has to keep that baby?
**************************
I never talked about this scenario. Obviously this is a rare case and one which would perhaps warrant an exception as it was not her choice to get pregnant. However, I would strongly urge anyone in this situation to have the baby and put it up for adoption.
Please, let's all be reasonable and think about others before doing anything or saying anything we may regret later.
Brent
I apologize if it was I who offended you. If I did not respect your opinions I would not bother even visiting here, reading them, and disagreeing.Quote:
Please, let's all be reasonable and think about others before doing anything or saying anything we may regret later.
And I do disagree with the marriage and God thing. While it is true that in certain religions there have been marriage ceremonies for thousands of years, the concept of marriage has assuredly existed since man was a hunter gatherer (and I also anticipate and respect that you may reject this as well). There was probably no concept of "God" with a big "G" in those days. Yet people teamed up in couples as husband and wife.
Judeo christianity cannot lay exclusive claim to the concept of marriage. Only to the concept of marriage inside the limited and fairly recent bounds of judeo-christianity.
And in my mind the whole point is moot because to say that something has always been some way, therefore it should always stay that way, doesn't make any sense. Many folks make this argument about the founding fathers. They would probably have had very different ideas about things (such as gun control) if they lived in our age assault weapons and drive-bys.
We just have to use our own minds and do the best we can in our own ages. It will soon (already is actually) be possible for a lesbian couple to parent children without a man. This is certain to become fairly common. Homosexual men will use a surrogate mother to parent children that are truely theirs. (half of each of them). Heterosexuals also will soon probably have some of their children through genetic enginneering, not natural sex (yikes!).
Shouldn't our culture and laws evolve to take advantage of these new developments?
We should press boldly forward, not hesitate to change, and not be afraid as our culture and biology changes and grows.
I think it's funny ("close minded") that many who believe in God think that those who don't have no morals.Quote:
Originally posted by tiggergreen
There were morals back then and if two people were together and had a child, that child was termed a bastard. If you do not believe in God and therefore do not believe in chastity, adultery or fornication, there is no need for marriage.
This is hilarious. Homosexuals recruiting the heteros! Wow, keep ME away! I know, it has to be tough to keep yourself from going Gay! Is it a Portland thing or a liberal (progressive) thing? It's neither. I have no doubt you either did see someone trying to recruit a heterosexual to be a homosexual, or at least think you did... no matter what happened that night I DO live in Portland (came from Texas mind you) and live around at least 3 homosexual couples... within a few houses of each. We have gotten to know a couple of ladies very well. They are the nicest people we know here. I have actually left my wife around them for an extended period of time and, you know what... she's still straight AND she wasn't abused! Imagine that! Not only are there homosexuals that do mean things but straight people do to!Quote:
Originally posted by tiggergreen
I did not condemn all homosexuals when I talked about the recruiters in Portland. I have a very good friend that is gay and he never attempts to recruit others.
It's just so amazing to me that this country is so split on homosexual marriage rights.
A few more comments on some of the other topics:
The Pie Chart: Yeah, you've got to wonder how accurate something like that could ever be. Like one person mentioned, China accounts for a big chunk of the world's population, but as a nation their official religion is Atheist (as is the case with all Communist governments). At one point China had the world's largest Buddhist population, some estimates putting it at around 300 million. That would at least double the percentage of Buddhists in the world (which in some cases shouldn't even be considered a religion, but that's a whole 'nother topic).
Homosexuality: I think one of the major topics of disagreement is whether it is a choice or if people are born homosexual. I personally believe that it's a choice, but whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business as long as it's not hurting anyone else. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a legal marriage if they so choose, however, there are some issues that come along with that which a lot of people aren't comfortable with. I don't see why they shouldn't get some of the benefits of marriage (i.e., tax breaks, health insurance, etc), but I don't support the idea of homosexual couples adopting children. I just don't see how a child could grow up with two moms or two dads in a homosexual union and not be a little bit screwed up. Throughout my life I've met and known a sufficient number of gays to form the idea that although many of them lead pretty decent, well-adjusted lives, most of them (at least the folks I've known) have some very deep emotional problems. This may of course be due to a lifetime of hurt inflicted by closed minded family, friends, and society, but it's true none the less. If someone chooses this path for themselves in their search for happiness, so be it. But I would rather not subject a child to the same issues if it wasn't his/her choice.
As for marriage not being man made, well, that's an opinion. It's my opinion that religion is man-made, therefore marriage is man-made. And regardless, there are plenty of non-religious people out there who choose to unite with another person for personal and legal reasons. In today's society there IS a need for marriage and to non-religious folks, it has nothing to do with your God.
Dude! You didn't!!!!?Quote:
I have actually left my wife around them for an extended period of time ...
Oh man you are so scr@wed. Tickle-fights in their underwear surely ensued. (my heterosexual male biased view of the lesbian community) LOL
There are groups out there and they target children. This has now happened to a friend and nephew in different parts of the country. A lot of people do not understand that homosexuality is a plague - while the gay community would like us all to believe that they are almost identical to heterosexuals when it comes to being a family unit, there are a lot of them that do not commit to one partner.
In the not too distant past, there were bath houses frequented by gay men and there were a lot of "anonymous" sexual unions taking place. In fact, this is why AIDS spread so quickly among the homosexuals... One man could have sex with twenty different partners in one day... And lets be frank about what they are doing to one another - sodomy... That is just plain disgusting. And yes, my nephew is now off the deep end - I have seen a great change in his life even if he is blind to it. I don't care about adults hanging around homosexuals - I am concerned about children doing the same.
I also believe Homosexuality is a choice - in fact, I compare it to alcoholism - except it is worse because a lot of homosexuals refuse to believe they have a problem and try to tell the world that they don't. What frightens me is that it is working... They need to realize that it is a problem and seek help. I am here for anyone seeking to remove themselves from this type of situation. I love all my fellow man and want everyone to be happy. I just know that wickedness never was happiness...
And here is the truth about marriage. I know it is true - I have asked God and he has told me that it is true - you can do the same. If you do not believe in God, then I don't understand why - because this Earth is a huge testimony of His existence. The first marriage was performed by God uniting Adam and Eve - it was an Eternal marriage - one that was not broken by the bonds of death. Later, this ceremony became secularized and the term "Until death do you part" became a part of the ritual marking that the marriage was not really recognized by God.
And I am tired of the whole "open mind, closed mind" argument. This is used by everyone when they do not have any other way of winning an argument. I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinion here (except when name-calling enters the fray) and I will continue to enjoy debating and talking with anyone about these deeply significant topics. I love hearing another's take on these matters and hope that everyone will continue to do so without making it a personal attack.
Brent
all I heard is ....Bla, bla, bla, Bush is a dirty POS!!!!!!!!!!
On gay adoption and other "non-traditional forms of child acquisition:"
1) Gay people do not have a monopoly on deep-seated emotional problems.
2) If a couple, or really any grouping of one or more people, feel so strongly about having a child that they are willing to go through the elaborate, expensive and emotionally wrenching process of adoption, that is a pretty good indication that the child will be well cared for and deeply loved. Which has got to be 100x better than growing up an orphan, or in an unloving and abusive household.
On the "choice to be gay:"
Tiggergreen, do you believe God gave free will to man alone, or do animals have free will too? If only man has free will, then how do you explain homosexual behaviour among animals?
On marriage coming from God:
How do you explain all the people who have been marrying for tens of thousands of years and who have never even heard of the Judeo-Chirstian God? I'm pretty sure that they wuld strongly disagree that their marriage has anything to do with your God.
Now that we've got most of this stuff worked out do ya think we could all just redo the election and get rid of the bushmeister?;Db;
I am just going to agree to disagree here with you, Brent. Nothing against you as I respect people and their opinions. That being said, I believe you and I are on totally different sides of this argument, so it would be worthless for me to post any more on this topic.
Oh, and I love you... in a non man-on-man, peanut-butter and feathers type of way. :p
By the way. Something has come over me. There is a '94 Jeep Wrangler a few blocks down the road (on our dog walking route) for $6500 OBO. I've been thinking of putting a piece of paper on this window saying if he'll except $5k to email me and let me know. Am I crazy? Jeeps are so easy to work on, and parts are so readily available... I'd probably need the availability for buying a Jeep and all. I dunno... I have to admit that I like them for what they are.
i shouldve waited till sunday to check this thread...wow..
:angel: ;puke2; :snooz:
Quote:
Originally posted by tiggergreen
The founding fathers believed in God and put it on all the currency ("In God We Trust")
Quote:
Originally posted by tiggergreen
...Please do some research...
Some research you may have neglected to do:
http://home.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm
All this time I thought that this was a list about the Vehicross. I got many great tips and information about this special vehicle. This list has reached an all time low. Keep the politics out of the list and let's get on with enjoying our little trucks. Oh, I understand France has room for those of you who can't stand it here. Maybe there will now be more room for us Vx'ers to drive.
rant mode off!
First I will digress - this is already old on this thread, but for some reason stuck with me out of the blue. The statement that the Taliban are still doing alright in Afghanistan and are producing 80% of the world's opium is false. Afghanistan produced a great percentage of the world's opium before the Taliban came to power, and the Taliban actually put it to a rather abrupt stop. So if Afghanistan is supplying a lot of opium again, it is actually proof positive that the Taliban is a thing of the past.
I am not homosexual so I do not know if homosexuality is a choice, but I tend to think that it is not simply by trying to relate it to myself in some way. How I do that is to ask myself if I ever made a choice to be a heterosexual. Well, no I didn't. It was automatic and natural for me and there was never any question that I was interested in women and not men. I would tend to think it must be the same for homosexuals. While things seem to be changing some, it is still not easy to be a homosexual, and it seems to me that not a whole lot of people would make a decision to be homosexual and face those hardships unless it was a natural part of their being and something they had little control over. If it were a choice, it would be much easier to choose differently.
Given what I've said, I am not totally sure how to reconcile homosexuality with the religious teachings I have been getting through the course of my life. It seems to me that what I think of homosexuality is really irrelevant. I think all I really need to know is that my religion teaches compassion and forgiveness, not hate and intolerance. So regardless of my feelings toward the practice of homosexuality or whether or not my faith says it is wrong, I do know without a shadow of a doubt that at least my own religious faith still does teach that one should try to look beyond it.
Rob,
check which forum this is . Non-vx related chit-chat. Just some lively discussion, no death threats ..............yet ;) :argue: :thumbup: :thumbdn: :?: ;wtf; ;eeky; :wtfo: :waab: ;ooo; :rollb: :laughg: :naughty: ;puke: :homer:
Adam, I love you too - thanks for that great post... I think you should get the jeep...
J La - interesting read - I learned quite a bit from reading this that I had not known before. However, in the declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." July 4, 1776 (emphasis added)
And let us pull from the writings of the founding fathers...
George Washington: "The power and goodness of the Almighty were strongly manifested in the events of our late glorious revolution; and his kind interposition in our behalf has been no less visible in the establishment of our present equal government. In war he directed the sword; and in peace he has ruled in our councils. My agency in both has been guided by the best intentions, and a sense of the duty which I owe my country. " (Letter from George Washington)
Here is an interesting read about the role of God in the founding of this great nation:
God and Washington
Here is a link to the constitution (a must read for anyone):
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
I could go on - but I suggest you do a search on the Internet for both sides of the issues and I think you will find that the answer is that the founding fathers wanted a separation of any single church and the state - basically they didn't want a repeat of the Church of England fiasco... However, they knew our nation would fall apart without religion. There are some incredible stories about the founding of the United States of America.
I took a class in college and that is why I know so much about this subject - however, sometimes my mind loses track of facts, and that is why I love the Internet - it is all at your disposal - for and against - all written very well for anyone to make an educated conclusion of the matter.
Brent
;Dp;
Can an atheist get insurance
against acts of God?:eek:
"Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" are terms that are primarily associated with deism.
Washington was well known as a deist, as were most of the founding fathers. You will find that there are no records of George Washington ever referring to Jesus - not a single mention of Christ in all of Washington's writings.
That is important in the context of the modern conservative christian idealogy which is firmly based in revelation. Deism completely rejects the idea of revelation.
Beyond the abstract characteristics of generic monotheism, the God of the deists shares very little in common with the God of christianity. For the most part, deists are just one step away from being agnostics.
Given that background, it is interesting that the article you linked to quotes Washington's farewell address in which he said:
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure -- reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Note that part about "influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure" -- basically he just said that enlightened people don't need religion to have morals, but for the average bloke its simpler if somebody else sets out the rules of morality and they just follow along.
I'm pretty sure that the author of the article didn't really pick up on that, despite it being in character for Washington - for example, he attended church about as rarely as he possibly could given his position in society.
yes, but they charge you a double deductible... :DQuote:
Originally posted by webdog
Can an atheist get insurance
against acts of God?:eek:
it would make an interesting argument though.. if the insurance company denied a claim due to an "act of god", and your athiest, couldnt one fight their decision based upon that? i dont think theres a clause in insurance policies requiring you acknowldege the existance of God when you sign up, therefore theyd have to pay out wouldnt they??
oh the fun one could have with that one.. ;eekr; ;Dy;
i respect religious beliefs, but i just dont think one has to subscribe to a popular organized religion in order to be spiritual.... Religion teaches good moral values, but i agree that religion is not a requirement to attain morality...Thats a great Quote by Washington (above) , thanks for posting it!!
As for this discussion about God and the founding fathers, many of them were not Christians. They were Deists.
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
This is very interesting. My in-laws, born again Christians, are forever paraphrasing this quote saying that "George Washington (or the founding fathers) intended this nation to be a christian and thought that if religion and state were separated the state would fail."Quote:
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure -- reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Now that you pointed this out and I carefully read it I can see what he really means and it's not quite how it is often paraphrased at all.
Perhaps if George Washington were with us today he would take a firm stance against the meddling of religion that is going on in America's politics today.
Very interesting.
What city would Jesus bomb next?
And please, no crap about, " this question can't be applied to the USA,... and to your sophisticated 'christian' 'ideas' of Jesus.
Or that Jesus represents only a 'spiritual' model,... but not really a model for YOUR OWN political actions.
And that USA casualties are more spiritually significant than the Iraqis that we are killing.
Did someone try to read between the lines of what I've been saying? I know well and good that George Washington was a Deist... I never tried to state that. However, the quote was not understood:
*************************
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure -- reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Note that part about "influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure" -- basically he just said that enlightened people don't need religion to have morals, but for the average bloke its simpler if somebody else sets out the rules of morality and they just follow along.
*************************
Let me put this quote in layman's terms:
"And let us be careful saying that morality can be maintained without religion. No matter how high an education a person has gained -- reason and experience have taught us that National morality cannot exist without religious principle."
His quote says that we cannot have morality without religion - which is what I was saying in the first place. This nation was founded by people who believed in GOD - I didn't say which one and I didn't say that it mattered. What I am saying is that I do believe that we all need to believe in a higher power whether Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever - because that is the driving force that helps us to be a better person, better families, better nation.
Jesus would not bomb anyone - I'm sorry - if you read the New Testament - he taught us to love our enemies. Last time I checked around - it isn't showing love when you drop a huge bomb on someone's neighborhood. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should only defend our country if someone was to attack us. Some would say that we were attacked on 9/11 - however, the group that attacked us was not a nation - but a group of outlaws attempting to overthrow our "infidel" nation. I don't know what would have been the best route - but if I had been in charge - I would have just boosted our nation's defenses including an overhaul of the airport security system and a tighter scrutiny of persons wishing to obtain a pilot's license...
I don't have all the answers, however, and I would hate to be in the position to have to make such crucial decisions. I do believe that the only way to win peace in this world, is through the power of love... If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. We have so far to go before we are even ready to show love for our enemies abroad. We have so much hate domestically and we really need to address that. Fathers pass their hate on to their progeny and it is a hard cycle to defeat...
Did I mention that I love my VX?
Cheers...
Brent
;Dp; ;Dr; ;Db;
I respect his conviction and I agree with tiggergreen's interpretation of the Washington quotation, but where we do differ is that I'm more of an Old Testament kinda guy. :-) Evil has to be confronted and defeated, and the nations harboring it must understand that there are consequences. We must mean what we say and do it.
I got into a bit of an argument with my brother over the separation of church and state recently. He has become quite the liberal and apparently has a real problem with President Bush's being openly religious, so he is for separation of church and state. I told him that while that all sounds fine and dandy, in reality there comes a point where the two are inextricably linked and things get tricky. Such as when you have a presidential candidate who claims to be a devout Catholic but also supports abortion. If you are a Catholic and you oppose abortion, how do you overlook that and vote for that candidate anyway? There will always be times in the debate over church and state in which one simply cannot ignore the other.
My brother is actually fairly religious. It is interesting that now many on the left are so even more outspoken against the religious community since this last election. Perhaps it will open his eyes. I have hope even in the midst of doubt.
Brent, your interpretation of the Washington quotation completely ignores the key phrase that I commented on. If Washington really believed what you say he believed, then what do you think he meant when he said, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure..." ?
Furthermore, look at the first sentence of the paragraph from which that quotation is taken, Washington begins it with, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
If he believe that morality uniquely and solely derives from religion, as you appear to be claiming why does he break morality out and give it equal standing? If morality flows only from religion and is not in any way self-evident, why did he not just say so, or at least write as if he believed it?
Also, I really would appreciate you addressing my question about animals, homosexual behaviour and free will.
Heraclid - I really don't see how a candidate's claim to being a devout follower of a particular religion and then holding forth in words or actions in contradiction to that religion's tenents is an issue of seperation between church and state. Seems to me it is simply a matter of person saying one thing and doing another.
The hypocrisy of claiming to be a devout catholic and then supporting the murder of babies is just as hypocritical as claiming to be a devout born-again christain and then bombing cities which are populated with innocent civilians. Hypocrisy is not some trait unique to claims of religious belief, it is simply a characteristic that some people have, regardless of their religion or lack there of.