Paul wrote:You seem to be asserting that the "Christian right' denigrates even the milder forms of tolerance, e.g., 'reasonable disagreement'. In fine, that such Christians will not respect the freedom of another to live as (s)he sees fit. Am I understanding you on this point?
Paul wrote:"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton
Paul wrote:I do take exception to those who accuse the "Christian right" of intolerance but fail to see the plank in their own eyes.
Paul wrote:Why are those who are so willing to bestow legitimacy on all manner of thought and belief so quick to attack religion?
Bert wrote:I was just trying to get you to explain this victimhood "statistic."
Paul wrote:What do these people have in common:
Antonin Scalia
Anne Coulter
Bill Kristol
Pat Buchanan
David Horowitz
Yes they are all conservatives...
PeterD wrote:
"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."?
PeterD wrote:[face=SPIonic]GEIA SOU, PAULE. [/face]
Paul wrote:What do these people have in common:
Antonin Scalia
Anne Coulter
Bill Kristol
Pat Buchanan
David Horowitz
Yes they are all conservatives...
I didn't know Ann Coulter was a consevative. Is he/she (???) not the one who said a few years ago "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"? Hmm...sounds kinda of fascist, don't you think?
"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."? Imagine that?! Anyway, you are probably referring to the NYU incindent where he was asked by a law student of the same univerisity: "Justice Scalia, do you sodomize your wife?"...and that's when all hell broke loose. Pretty fair question if you ask me. If SCJ Scalia wants to pass legal judgment on the sexual practices of consenting adults, then it's fair game for him to be asked about his wife's poofter!
I don't know much about Bill Kristol except that he once got a pie in the face. (I do hope it was low in fat.) Pat Buchanan is another story, but let's leave him for now. As for David Horowitz, is he Irish? If David Horowitz is Irish, then Lawrence Summers must be Irish, as well.
Please excuse my sarcasm. But I do believe you could have selected far better conservative candidates to make your point.
Panagiw/thj[/face]
Paul wrote:1. I'd still like to hear from you some concrete examples of these voices on the right.
Liberal tolerance is grounded in relativism, the view that no one point of view on moral and religious knowledge is objectively correct for every person in every time and place. This notion, as understood and embraced in popular culture, feeds on the fact of pluralism, the reality of a plurality of different and contrary opinions on religious and moral matters. Against this backdrop, many in our culture conclude that one cannot say that one’s view on religious and moral matters is better than anyone else’s view. They assert that it is a mistake to claim that one’s religious beliefs are exclusively correct and that believers in other faiths, no matter how sincere or devoted, hold false beliefs. Thus, religious inclusivism is the correct position to hold.
This anti-Christian standard for right and wrong has permeated teacher's colleges, educational laboratories, and curricula for decades. It has torn down God's boundaries, and allowed immorality and deception to flood our land. No wonder children are adrift in a tumultuous current of inner conflict and moral confusion.
The concept of religious tolerance, that Christians in political authority should permit persons of differing faith to practice their own religions, has risen and fallen many times in history. At times, church leaders have considered tolerance itself to be a heresy. The lack of religious tolerance caused many religious groups to migrate (Molokans, Quakers, Mennonites, and others). Modern Christianity appears, for the most part, to have adopted a position of tolerance. There are, however, exceptions such as American Christian Reconstructionism which, according to some observers, could pave the way for the persecution of dissenting faiths. This is related to the issues of ecumenism and religious pluralism.
edonnelly wrote:PeterD wrote:
"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."?
Actually, he did not say it. That misquote has been floating around for a long time. It is usually attributed to his concurring opinion in Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993). Of course, if you actually read what he wrote, you'll see quite the opposite story. He acknowledges that the US Constitution is not, and cannot be, perfect; nor can it remedy all wrongs, which is why, as he states in the opinion, we have executive pardons in the first place.
PeterD wrote:First, Scalia has never -- I repeat -- never denied the above quote.
Second, it is true that I have not read in its entirety Scalia's opinion in the Herrera matter. However, I do know for a FACT that Leonel Torres Herrera was executed in Texas in 1993 AFTER the US Supreme Court, with yours truly --Scalia-- on the bench, refused to hear new, exonerating evidence. Murderous decision, don't you think?
JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent.
edonnelly wrote:Nevertheless, I do not agree with the mentality that it is ok to fabricate facts (e.g. pull a Dan Rather) to try to prove one's point, so I feel I must again respond.
www.snopes.com wrote:Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
...Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s ... when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).
In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.
edonnelly wrote:Nevertheless, I do not agree with the mentality that it is ok to fabricate facts (e.g. pull a Dan Rather) to try to prove one's point, so I feel I must again respond.
I certainly believe you when you say you have not read the opinion (to which I had linked in my previous post), for if you did you would have also encountered Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion:JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent.
So, indeed, the court, Scalia and all, did hear his evidence. Was it wrong to execute him, absolutely -- but let's be honest, the reason has nothing to do with either the judicial process or his new "evidence."
Personally, I think misquotes, half-truths and statements not supported by actual facts do far more harm than good when one is trying to make a persuasive argument.
Democritus wrote:Al Gore never said he invented the internet, either. So, as part of your crusade to set the facts straight, please remember to defend poor old Al, too.
PeterD wrote:Do not accuse me of fabricating facts.
PeterD wrote:Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.
PeterD wrote:...And if you had bothered to read Justice Blackmun's dissent (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter):
"We are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence."
PeterD wrote:...and I would add: nor should one make false accusations!
edonnelly wrote:PeterD wrote:Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.
What dribble is this? Because he doesn't hunt down everything said about him by less-than-legitimate news sources and internet propaganda houses, you conclude your statement is somehow justified? You should be ashamed of even saying this.
edonnelly wrote:PeterD wrote:Do not accuse me of fabricating facts.
I accuse you of misquoting and I stand by that statement, unless you have any true evidence that he actually said it.
edonnelly wrote:PeterD wrote:Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.
What dribble is this? Because he doesn't hunt down everything said about him by less-than-legitimate news sources and internet propaganda houses, you conclude your statement is somehow justified? You should be ashamed of even saying this.
edonelly wrote:PeterD wrote:...And if you had bothered to read Justice Blackmun's dissent (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter):
"We are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence."
Yes, because they considered arguendo that such evidence existed, though in this case it clearly did not. As Scalia points out, the more proper mechanism for such evidence is executive pardon. Surely one could debate whether or not it was the correct decision and why, but none of this would have anything to do with your absurd statement about the Court "refusing" to hear "new, exonerating evidence."
edonelly wrote:PeterD wrote:...and I would add: nor should one make false accusations!
Indeed, and I'm glad I did not. One should also not echo nonsense one reads elsewhere without fully understanding it.
Paul wrote:Peter, not only is your argument nonsense, it's deceptive: tell us how your opinion of Scalia would differ had he denied saying this?
PeterD wrote:If he had denied saying it, I would simply not have used that quote. It's not like he's dead and he can't defend himself. I would have used this one instead:
"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction." Herrera v. Collins 506 U.S. 390 (1993)
PeterD wrote:Wow! And I thought the Constitution was all about civil liberities.
PeterD wrote:But when crooks, liars, hypocrites, and war profiteers take to the podium, a decent, civilized society will not only shout them down but will also throw a few pies and eggs their way. I have never heard of anyone ever losing life or limb in such a case. Have you?
PeterD wrote:p.s. (military music playing) For those Americans wishing to support Halliburton's bottom line: Enlist now in the U.S. Army. They can sure use a few extra limbs in Iraq. www.goarmy.com
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Question: Can God hear colors?
Answer: Invalid question, colors are not meant to be heard.
Similarly: Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved.
Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?
Answer: Invalid question, because it is impossible for there to exist a rock which God cannot lift, God's ability is limitless.
Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved ... just like colors are not meant to be heard.
vir litterarum wrote:It is like asking if God can find the square root of a negative number. Such a number cannot exist because it defies mathematical law.
vir litterarum wrote:A rock which cannot be lifted by God is not possible
Democritus wrote:vir litterarum wrote:A rock which cannot be lifted by God is not possible
Yes, but not possible for whom? For God? Aren't all things possible for God?
There is no way out of this logical conundrum. We can try to dance around it, but it's still there. The whole idea of "omnipotence" inevitably leads to logical contradictions which cannot be avoided.
You are correct that omnipotence is the power to do all things, but can defying the very definition of omnipotence really be considered a plausible action. You cannot consider the action of creating an object which would violate the very definition of the essence of God's being as an actual concept. Another way to phrase such a query is can God create an object which would exist in contradiction to the very definition of the God. Can God create an object which exceeds the boundaries of omnipotence by exercising omnipotence? This question is unanswerable because it is a paradox which cannot be considered to exist within the boundaries of "all things." Someone may retort that all things includes anything, but the question, because it contradicts itself and logic, cannot be considered to be a question of actual omnipotence, for omnipotence does not necessitate that a being which is omnipotent can defy common sense. Let us ask if God can jump and fall in spot at one time? This question cannot be answered not because God is not all powerful but because it defies logic. Humans understand intrinsically that one body, if it is projected upwards, cannot be falling simultaneously. God gave men the ability to reason for a reason: To innately understand and obviate such an illogical dispute to the concept of God. Furthermore, Why would God ever need to lift a rock? For someone to lift something, gravity is required for someone to apply a lifting force against. If God were even to create an infinitely large rock, he would not need to lift it because there is no gravity in space and I doubt that there is any gravity in heaven or the spiritual realm.Aren't all things possible for God?
Iulianus wrote:God is omnipotent - in al aspects - thus his power of creation is equally unlimited. His power of lifting rocks however, should therefore be equally unlimited. But, who is to say God cannot simply alter reality (or our logic) in such a way that he is (1) able to create a rock that even he cannot lift, (2) still lift it? Just because this defies our very language and logic, doesn't mean it isn't possible for God.
Paulos wrote:So how is it that a created being (kinda like the rock), have the power to alter the creation and bring it into subjection to him, I am speaking of that serpent of old. How could he bring man into his army and enable him to serve him rather than the Creator? Something that seems to be great power?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests