PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:30 am

Rhuiden wrote:Only activist judges have done that and they do not have the power to legislate from the bench. Before anyone blows a gasket, I know that is exactly what is happening today but it only because Congress has chosen not to fulfill their constitutional duty. It is easier for them, it gives them an excuse and someone to blame. The activist judges can implement the liberal idealogy and are not accountable to anyone. That is another discussion.
Presumably there are more religious activist (i.e. "fanatic") judges than anti-religious activist judges. It seems to me that if a lot of judges were abusing their power in the way which you have mentioned, that the general swing would be in favor of religion.
One other very important point, when religion is removed from government, morality is removed also. Do we really want to be governed (ruled) by a government with no moral basis? I sure don't.
I assure you I have just as much morality, if not more, than most of the religious people I have ever known. Morality and religion are separate entities, even if religion governs morality. What makes a religious government more moral? Taliban, medieval Europe anyone? However, I doubt the government has much morality either way. And it has always appeared to me that political figures tend not to care much about religion, except when it serves them to display their faith.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:03 am

Rhuiden wrote:Equally sad is that there are those who wish to establish atheism as the official religion. Unfortunately, they seem to be winning now.
To call atheism a religion robs the word religion utterly of meaning.

Second, it's important to distinguish a policy of atheism (enforcing no religion, like the Soviet Union) from secularism, which aims to keep goverment out of the religion business. When a government says "you cannot go to church" - and enforces it - then it is establishing atheism. When a goverment judiciary says "the state cannot endorse Christianity" it is secularism.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:48 am

benissimus wrote:It seems to me that if a lot of judges were abusing their power in the way which you have mentioned, that the general swing would be in favor of religion.
One recent example. In Louisiana, 80% the people voted to institute a ban on gay marriage in the state. One judge decided that this could not be permitted and blocked the will of the people. This sounds like abuse to me. Similar things are happening with the ban on partial birth abortion. Other than Roy Moore wanting to display the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama, when was the last time a "religious" judge threw out the will of the people and imposed his morality. I think you would be hard to come up with many examples, if any. The fact that these things have not caused a big swing in favor of religion says something about the apathy of our citizens.
benissimus wrote:I doubt the government has much morality either way. And it has always appeared to me that political figures tend not to care much about religion, except when it serves them to display their faith.
I agree that government as an entity does not have morality one way or the other. The morality comes from the people who run the government. If we elect people with low moral character, then the government will have low moral character (prime exampe - Bill Clinton).

Benissimus, I am not questioning your morality but I have one question. Where did you learn your morality? Mine can be traced back to the teachings in the Bible. I agree that a person does not have to be religious to be moral, if it sounded as if that was what I was saying, I apologize. That was not my intent. Morality must come from somewhere. I, of course, have my opinion of where but that could be a whole new discussion.
annis wrote:To call atheism a religion robs the word religion utterly of meaning.
I do believe that atheism is a religion. In fact, I believe it requires more faith than Christianity but the difference is that is offers no hope in return.

I know that when PeterD posts, he seems to create a great deal of passion in those that respond (including me). It seems from reading some of the responses to my posts that I may be approaching that status. I do not mean any personal offense to anyone. I am not trying to pick fights. My wife says that I just like to argue and that is mostly true, I do love to debate the contriversial topics. Anyway, great discussion

Rhuiden

classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:58 am

when religion is removed from government, morality is removed also.
Does someone need to worship a god in order to know right from wrong?

As Annis said, the POINT of Atheism is that it is not a religion. Many people see it as easier to accept humanity as itself and to not get tangled up in the misterious web of unconditional faith.

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:32 am

I completely agree with this statement. But the point remains that nothing in the Constitution prohibits religions from being part of the government.
That wasn’t the point. The point was the “farce” of the separation of the Church and State.

Stop and look at something here.

In the beginning, you didn’t believe there was anything in the Constitution about the separation of Church and State. Now you know there is. That should be a big red flag to you.

It is hard to over emphasize the importance of this one principle: the government must have nothing to do with religion. There is no difference between a state religion and a state run by a religion. This is a fundamental principle of our government. Discovering you missed this should be like discovering you’ve been walking up the down escalator. You want to stop and re-evaluate your thinking.
Only activist judges have done that and they do not have the power to legislate from the bench.
One purpose of the judicial branch is the oversight of the other two branches of government. When they overstep their authority, the judicial branch has the authority to step in and correct the error. In this case, when the legislative branch allows their religious views to affect laws they enact, the judicial branch can correct the fault and declare the law unconstitutional and void. It is a part of their function. This was the critical decision of Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.

“Before anyone blows a gasket, I know that is exactly what is happening today…”

This makes it very hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion. The problem I see is that some people with religious beliefs cannot abide the fact that others not only don’t have the same beliefs they do but that they have the freedom to live by those beliefs. So they wish to restrict their freedom by legislation. Well, that’s democracy too, I guess.
phpbb

Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:36 am

Rhuiden wrote:I am also curious where you got your figures for the innocents killed. How do we know that those were truly innocent? The number could have been manufactured or doctored by someone to fit their agenda.
He gave the link to Iraqi Body Count, but here are some other figure if you're interested:
Thousands of Iraqi civilians have also died as a result of conflict and its bloody aftermath - but officially, no one has any idea how many.

Human rights groups say the occupying powers have failed in a duty to catalogue the deaths, giving the impression that ordinary Iraqis' lives are worth less than those of soldiers.

Unofficial estimates of the civilian toll vary wildly, from at least 10,000 to more than 37,000.

But the view famously expressed by US General Tommy Franks that "we don't do body counts" still resonates in government circles.

America and Britain say the chaos of war-torn Iraq makes it impossible to get accurate information.

And while Iraq's health and interior ministries now record non-military deaths, resources for this are tiny in a country rebuilding after war.

The UK-based Iraq Body Count - run on a shoestring by about 20 academics and peace activists - is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian toll.

It says 13-15,000 ordinary Iraqis have died since the invasion in March 2003, figures compiled from media reports of thousands of incidents.

Civilian toll estimates at 09/04

Iraq Body Count: 13-15,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000

From Counting the civilian cost in Iraq

By Matthew Davis
BBC News Online

Total Iraqi soldiers killed: 150,000
Civilians in first war: 83,000
Dead due to sanctions: 1,500,000
Civilians in second war: 27,000
Coalition soldiers killed in first war: 128
Coalition soldiers killed this war: 1228 (so far)

For a grand total of: 1,760,000 to 1356
*Kuwait lost approx 600 in Gulf War. (Not tallied)
compiled by some guy with spare time on his hands using various sources
phpbb

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:39 am

Timothy wrote:In the beginning, you didn’t believe there was anything in the Constitution about the separation of Church and State. Now you know there is. That should be a big red flag to you.
I do not know any such thing. The clause in the First Amendment only prohibits the government from creating or promoting a state sponsored religion. It does not mean that religion cannot be a part of government. The founding fathers knew that God had played an integral part in the formation of our country. They believed that a government run by men who did not fear God could not succeed. Our nation is seeing the effects of taking God out of everything today.

Now to the judges. I understand the system of checks and balances. It is a well thought out system and worked well for a long time but today the judges are overstepping their bounds and neither of the other branches are willing to try to stop them. In Mass. last year (or earlier this year), judges TOLD the legisilature that they had a certain length of time to make a law allowing gay marriage. By itself, that is very scary but what is scarier is that the Mass. legislature complied. The legilature on almost all levels have abdicated their power. In effect, we only have a two branch government now. When are we going to get back to the Constitution, the way it was written and intended by the founding fathers?

Many believe that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document. I do not. Those that do are able to use the court system (activity judges) to change the Constitution without following the method spelled out. I do not know if our nation can recover if we continue down this road.

Rhuiden

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:18 pm

Rhuiden wrote:I do believe that atheism is a religion. In fact, I believe it requires more faith than Christianity but the difference is that is offers no hope in return.
What God do atheists worship? What is His name? What obedience does His service demand?
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:00 pm

I do not know any such thing. The clause in the First Amendment only prohibits the government from creating or promoting a state sponsored religion. It does not mean that religion cannot be a part of government.
Removing the barrier to government interference in religious activity allows all of these examples to be passed as law without any possibility of review in any court:

- only christian churches are exempt from taxes.
- all schools, private and public, will begin and end each class with the christian prayer M.
- all public meetings will be presided over by a christian minister.
- no law will take effect until approved by the council of christian bishops.
- all money will have the 10 commandments printed on it.

This is persecution by "other means." This is why the Pilgrims came to America; to escape from this.
phpbb

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:05 pm

annis wrote:
Rhuiden wrote:I do believe that atheism is a religion. In fact, I believe it requires more faith than Christianity but the difference is that is offers no hope in return.
What God do atheists worship? What is His name? What obedience does His service demand?
Self

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:12 pm

Let's say one needs to choose a doctor. A logical person would choose a doctor who is well qualified, not whether the doctor shares the same religion with him/her or whether the doctor looks like someone you might want to have a beer with. It would be crazy if religion or personality, or any other superficial reason took precedence over qualifications. The same logic would apply when choosing a lawyer, carpenter, etc.

So my question is: why would that logic not apply when choosing the President of the United States? :?


~PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:28 pm

Rhuiden wrote:
I do believe that atheism is a religion. In fact, I believe it requires more faith than Christianity but the difference is that is offers no hope in return.
Religion, from religere means that you bind yourself to a certain belief system. The belief system is written down in your book called the Bible, you bind yourself to believe what it says in there and to behave how it says you should. An atheist doesn't, an atheist is not bound to any rules and laws except for those of the state and those moral and social rules he thinks are right after thinking about them. You call that a religion, because you say it requires faith in myself? You can only believe your God exists, but I bloody well know that I exist, I can tell you that. You are left with doubt that he may not exist, for what proof do you have that it is not in the end the minds of men who have made up your religion? You have none, I however know 100% that I exist. You have faith that your God's decisions on moral are the best, but as I said these morals could just as well just be those of some guys who lived 3000 years ago and no more, nothing holy about them. They too were made by humans and so you too actually (from the viewpoint of an atheist) have faith in the human mind to come up with morals and good judgment. But you only have faith in the minds of those guys a few thousand years ago, whereas atheist can have 'faith' in the minds of present day people too. Christianity may offer hope, but other religions in the past didn’t, weren’t they religions too though?
phpbb

chiggles
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by chiggles » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:47 pm

Rhuiden wrote:I believe Kerry's position on abortion is indefensible. If you believe life begins at conception, then is it not murder to kill that life. I believe it is. What say does the child have in the decision? None. Many women use abortion as a means of contraception...THIS IS WRONG!!!! If they do not want a child, give it up for adoption. Others say that life does not begin at conception so the woman is only removing a "tissue mass". HOW SAD. Look at an ultrasound of the "tissue mass" after only a few weeks and tell me what you see.
Life beginning at conception is what Kerry believes, it has not been proven as fact, anymore than every sperm is sacred has been. As for the child having no say, this is correct. But is it any less say than somebody hit by an air strike in Baghdad? Undoubtedly they are aware of the possibility of death by explosion or other means, but tossing it into the bin of "those that choose to stay in a war zone have chosen to take their chances" is a bit cold-hearted, if I may say. Do you honestly believe that every person in this war zone has the capability of safely exiting such an encompassing area, when there's a level of unrest further than their legs can carry them? With said restrictions, it hardly seems to be a choice for all.
Now, the pro-war and pro death penalty answers. It seems that you are trying to equate these things under the "You shall not murder" commandment.
By saying "how do you justify your support of somebody whom is anti abortion, yet pro war, and pro death penalty" I did not mean to equate it with any commandment or religious connotation. But knowing that for you how intertwined morality and religion are ("my position that ALL morality comes from a religious code"), I can now see how your perceptions led you to comprehend it so ("I filter everything through the teachings of the Bible"). That you realize this makes me happy.

Sorry to repost this part, but you never responded to my questions about you saying this:
I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallable, complete and perfect word of God.
I am not saying this is not the case, but are you referring to just the Torah (Pentetauch [Five Books of Moses]), the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), Old Testament (Christianized ordering of the Tanakh), these including the NT, or just the NT? Is there a specific translation of these which you prefer? If so, are you aware of the different MSS which make up this version, and which textual variants it places preference on, and in turn those it omits?
I do apologize if I am being a tad inquisitive or something akin to such, but I wonder how out of the many variations in the NT manuscripts, one can come to an absolute certainty as to which of these is the "complete and perfect word of God." Nevermind the synoptic problem.
In the Old Testiment, there was primarily one punishment for crimes...
And in the OT there's numerous rituals dealing with what to do after many types of offenses, and what form of sacrifice is to take place. These are one of the bloody parts of Judaism that Christianity has left behind, sometimes I forget there exist denominations that have brought vengeance along. What I read from the gospels is redemption, salvation, love. I cannot claim to have read the OT in its entirety, but extracted little of the same values I got from the gospels also out of the OT. To some, there appears to be a bit of a dichotomy. Not until you start reading the letters of Paul does one get into a more militant OT feel in the NT.

One of my favorite stories (Luke 8:27, Mark 5) concerns Legion. What I gather from these passages is that the possessed man is crazy, capable of evils, and with his encounter of Christ's driving out his demons, is set upon the right path. And when Jesus is in the market place castigating the Pharisees (Matt 23) he comes across as despising killing. No doubt our two interpretations of certain passages will have differences, based on our own world-views, and the cryptocity of what is being read. For instance, I just now realized that I have been attempting to invalidate the vengeance/violence in the OT from portions of your arguments, simply because what I follow/believe in most out of the good book are the words of Jesus Christ, not the vengeance/violence or dogma.
Also, it is not murder to kill an convicted criminal.
Merriam-Webster wrote:Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
So there are laws allowing for it, and there is the possibility of no "malice aforethought". Following along these lines too, would not an abortion in a state or nation where it is legal not constitute as murder? "... life begins at conception, then is it not murder to kill that life. I believe it is." Perchance, is this a bit of a double standard, allowing someone on Death Row to be executed because they have been convicted, but not allowing for removal of some tissue-mass, while buth are upheld by the law?
I also know that some say that mistakes are made and innocent people are executed. I cannot speak to that, but I know that in our justice system there are ample opportunities for a death row inmate to prove his innocence.
Proving innocence while locked up can't be that difficult.... and it won't be even harder if you're a black in texas, with a biased jury...? I believe in conclusive evidence, this is not always the case (I mentioned Gary Graham before [http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Sankofa_Shaka.htm], I suggest you read that. What good does killing convicted criminals do for us?
I am also curious where you got your figures for the innocents killed. How do we know that those were truly innocent? The number could have been manufactured or doctored by someone to fit their agenda.
Ah, a link was provided in my previous post, but they don't always stick out with the color scheme on this board. Here is the link: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. Underneath where the Min/Max are listed, there is "View Database...." click on that. In the right hand column of the data, you will see the news source. We don't know that all of these people were truly innocent, I doubt that all were, but one cannot dismiss them as guilty (guilty of what?). What also, is the necessity of using explosives inside a city? On a battle field, where one could see their enemies in uniform carrying weapons, by all means do so. But in living quarters? If we knew that our weapons were hitting their intended targets without any civilian casualty, this may be acceptable, but this is not what is happening [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 75D8J1.DTL]. Emma_85, thank you for the BBC quotage, and pointing out the already existing (yet obscure due to color schemes) link.

So you may better understand my view, I shall try to explain a few things, but cannot guarantee their comprehensibility. I do not feel abortion is right, but I am of the belief that no entity should have the power to restrict or force another into doing anything. Everybody should be responsible for their actions, and if there are negative consequences to such actions, hopefully they will learn from them. If somebody sleeps around and is impregnated, they should have the choice before anybody else what is to be done. If this person chooses to abort because they do not know who the father could be or whatever reasons they may have, let them. I do not think this is right, and that persons should be fully aware of consequences beforehand, but we all know this is not always the case with the youth of today (or even adults).
I ask you to consider a rape victim who had no intent on raising a child. Would you truly expect them to allow something that was half rapist to grow in their body, and afterwards raise it as if they wanted it?

Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:06 am

I believe the death penalty is necessary and should be used more often
It would be most useful to know why you felt it is necessary, and by how much more exactly it should be used.

Phylax

BTW, I have started a thread entitled "The Bible: the word of God". I understand you have absolute views on this, and would be grateful to see you propounding your opinion there, if you would be so kind to us
phpbb

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:32 am

chiggles wrote:Quote:
I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallable, complete and perfect word of God.

I am not saying this is not the case, but are you referring to just the Torah (Pentetauch [Five Books of Moses]), the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), Old Testament (Christianized ordering of the Tanakh), these including the NT, or just the NT? Is there a specific translation of these which you prefer? If so, are you aware of the different MSS which make up this version, and which textual variants it places preference on, and in turn those it omits?
I do apologize if I am being a tad inquisitive or something akin to such, but I wonder how out of the many variations in the NT manuscripts, one can come to an absolute certainty as to which of these is the "complete and perfect word of God." Nevermind the synoptic problem.
Sorry I missed this in my previous responses but as you can tell, I have had many questions/comments in response to my posts on many different subjects and it has been difficult to respond to everything. My current choice is Ryrie Expanded Study Bible in the New American Standard translation. I also like the Holman Christian Standard Bible. For study purposes I have several translations in addition to these - King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard and Amplified Bible and I have been known to look up other translations on the web.

I know of the different MSS but am in no way qualified to discuss them, I have not done any study or research on them so I am forced to take the word of others who have. I have read reviews of how the translations teams came up with their translations from the original texts. I did this some time ago when I decided to switch from the NIV to a more literal translation. As for how I can be sure that what I have it the complete and perfect will of God, FAITH. I think that God has guided/inspired, or whatever word you wish to use, the formation of the Bible as we know it.
chiggles wrote:I forget there exist denominations that have brought vengeance along. What I read from the gospels is redemption, salvation, love.
Those are certainly primary themes in the Gospels. Jesus came to proclaim the Good News but he also quoted from and taught from the Old Testiment. The Old Testiment also taught love but could not teach salvation because the people were still under the law of Moses until Jesus died and rose on the third day.

I have heard many say that they could never serve a God that did the things that were done in the Old Testiment. I have heard some say that the God of the New Testiment can't be the same God as the one in the Old Testiment. It can and He is the same God. Many seem to have a problem with some of the things God did or told the Isrealites to do in the Old Testiment. I think that this is because they are starting with the wrong perspective. They analyze these situations from a human perspective instead of a God perspective. This is a hard concept to grasp for non-believers or those who are young in their faith but is a vital point. We must realize that we all were created by God, therefore we are his property and He can do with us as He pleases. By His grace and mercy, He gave us free will so we are able to reject or accept Him. Jesus came to provide a way for those that accept Him to get into Heaven.
chiggles wrote:And when Jesus is in the market place castigating the Pharisees (Matt 23) he comes across as despising killing.
I just reread this chapter and did not come up with the same meaning that you did. I think Jesus' point here was the hypocricy of the Pharisee and how they were misleading the people causing them not to be able to receive and understand His message thus causing them not to be able to receive the gift of salvation.
chiggles wrote:Merriam-Webster wrote:
Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

So there are laws allowing for it, and there is the possibility of no "malice aforethought". Following along these lines too, would not an abortion in a state or nation where it is legal not constitute as murder? "... life begins at conception, then is it not murder to kill that life. I believe it is." Perchance, is this a bit of a double standard, allowing someone on Death Row to be executed because they have been convicted, but not allowing for removal of some tissue-mass, while buth are upheld by the law?
I do believe that abortion is murder. I would go further to say that it constitutes child sacrifice. I do not see a double standard here at all. The child is completely innocent while the person on Death Row is not. Abortion is murder while execution of a Death Row inmate is justice.

Also if you look at the definition of murder as a verb you get: 1)to kill unlawfully and with premeditated malice, 2)to slaughter wantonly: slay, 3)a: to put an end to. Parts 2 and 3a seem to fit abortion very well.
chiggles wrote:What good does killing convicted criminals do for us?
It ensures that they will not commit any further crime and it does not require the citizens to feed, clothe, and provide them with cable tv and a work-out room.
chiggles wrote:What also, is the necessity of using explosives inside a city? On a battle field, where one could see their enemies in uniform carrying weapons, by all means do so. But in living quarters? If we knew that our weapons were hitting their intended targets without any civilian casualty, this may be acceptable, but this is not what is happening
What are you supposed to do if the enemy will not come out onto the battle field? Would you go out if a nice soldier came to your door and asked "please put on your uniform, grab your gun, and come to the battle field where our better trained, better equipped soldiers can kill you". These terrorist are using the citizens and holy sites as shields so we won't kill them where they are and when we do, others accuse us of killing civilians.
chiggles wrote:If somebody sleeps around and is impregnated, they should have the choice before anybody else what is to be done. If this person chooses to abort because they do not know who the father could be or whatever reasons they may have, let them.
I mean no personal offense by this but, abortion as a means of birth control is sickening. In my opinion it is lower than low, it is horrific. I am ashamed that so many Americans have this opinion. It shows how far our country has deteriorated. At the risk of being rude, I cannot respect someone who believes that way. I am curious, Chiggles, how old are you? I will turn 36 on the 29th of this month.

Rhuiden
[/quote]

chiggles
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Madison, WI

An ounce of prevention

Post by chiggles » Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:25 am

Rhuiden wrote:What are you supposed to do if the enemy will not come out onto the battle field? Would you go out if a nice soldier came to your door and asked "please put on your uniform, grab your gun, and come to the battle field where our better trained, better equipped soldiers can kill you". These terrorist are using the citizens and holy sites as shields so we won't kill them where they are and when we do, others accuse us of killing civilians.
Starve or wait them out, don't attack them unjustly, don't "accidentally" kill their families and expect them not to do anything about it. Again, using explosives in populated areas is neither a noble nor glorious thing, even if it may be convenient and less time consuming.
What is the necessity and urgency of being in these cities and engaging in such areas? Entering them does nothing more than provoke people to defend themselves, especially when we often miss our target. In my previous post I linked to an article of how 0 in 50 of our first air strikes had not hit their intended targets. Who did they hit? Hell, the middle east is littered with terrorists, we must've got some of 'em, thereby justifying the slaughter of civilians.
Rhuiden wrote:I mean no personal offense by this but, abortion as a means of birth control is sickening. In my opinion it is lower than low, it is horrific. I am ashamed that so many Americans have this opinion. It shows how far our country has deteriorated. At the risk of being rude, I cannot respect someone who believes that way. I am curious, Chiggles, how old are you? I will turn 36 on the 29th of this month.
I take no offense, and I too find using it as birth control quite sickening, and that it should not be done for such reasons when it could have been prevented by an ounce of forethought. However, it is not for me to say whether or not somebody can get a tattoo, and the same goes for an abortion. Their body, not mine. And until the day I am a female and know how it is to be one, I can not even begin to fathom potentialities one must consider every now and again. To briefly sum up what was just said: wrong choice, but not mine to make.

And for the age of Chiggles, it is 23.

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: An ounce of prevention

Post by Rhuiden » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:15 pm

chiggles wrote:Starve or wait them out, don't attack them unjustly, don't "accidentally" kill their families and expect them not to do anything about it.
In starving them out would we not also have to starve the civilians in the cities. Seems like a no win situation. Also, we are not attacking "unjustly", they attacked up first....remember 9/11, the Twin Tower, Airplanes, 3000 dead American civilians.

chiggles wrote:I take no offense, and I too find using it as birth control quite sickening, and that it should not be done for such reasons when it could have been prevented by an ounce of forethought. However, it is not for me to say whether or not somebody can get a tattoo, and the same goes for an abortion. Their body, not mine. And until the day I am a female and know how it is to be one, I can not even begin to fathom potentialities one must consider every now and again. To briefly sum up what was just said: wrong choice, but not mine to make.
I applaud your personal feelings but they mean nothing unless you are willing to advocate them to others. Tattoo affect noone except the person getting them so of course we have no say, but abortion takes a life that cannot speak for itself so we have a duty to do so. As for the "their body not mine" argument, assume you see a child about to touch the eye of a stove while it is hot, do you say "oh well, they need to learn not to touch hot stove eyes and it is their choice not mine". No you stop the child and tell them never to do that. What if your best friend comes to you and says "I can't take it anymore, I am going to take my own life". He then pulls out a gun, loads it, pulls back the hammer, and puts it in his mouth. Do you say "Oh well, it is his choice not mine". Or would you stop him and get him the help he needed.

These are the same principles when dealing with someone choosing an abortion except much more so because their is a baby involved that cannot speak for itself.

People who take the position you have mentioned are trying to have it both ways. It is not consistent. I suspect that most are completely for abortion but won't admit it for fear of having to defend why they believe that way.

Rhuiden

Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Re: An ounce of prevention

Post by Emma_85 » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:40 pm

Rhuiden wrote:In starving them out would we not also have to starve the civilians in the cities. Seems like a no win situation. Also, we are not attacking "unjustly", they attacked up first....remember 9/11, the Twin Tower, Airplanes, 3000 dead American civilians.
Iraqis had nothing to do with the attacks. The Iraqi government did not have much to do with terrorists. Why would they? Saddam was not a fundamentalist, so he didn't think that he should be helping those fundamentalists, who among wanting to destroy the US and Israel also desperately wanted to turn Iraq into a theocracy. He would not shield or protect a terror group in his country fearing they would act against him. He might have wanted to give them some money to help them fight America, but why give away much money when others are already financing terror? There is a possibility that he gave some terror groups money. That is all. Bad as that is, I do not think that can justify a war, as there is and was never any proof that he did that. You can't go to war because you suspect he might on the off chance maybe have given some money to that 'bad guys'. So that was not the official reason, instead they said that Iraq would used WOMD against the US, even though the inspectors said they'd found nothing, needed more time, and didn't think they'd find anything.

You can't go to war on that basis. And to go to war to change a regime is illegal under international law. And Iraq as I said would not have been giving away loads of money, more likely that money that funds terrorist organisations would have come from other sources. So instead of trying to freeze up and track down the accounts of people funding terrorism (likely to be private, rich people, who hate the US and Israel) or look for terrorists such as Bin Laden (who'd Saudi, not Iraqi) there was a war with Iraq, which did not have enough legitimacy. A war because Iraq did not comply with the UN? Huh, like the US in the end just went to war without the UN having allowed it. Such two-facedness.
phpbb

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:49 pm

Emma_85 have you forgotten the terrorist training facilities in Iraq. Do you remember the jet liner the terrorists were using to train on before 911. What about the reward that Saddam was paying to the familiies of the suicide bombers.

Also, international law does not apply to the US when it comes to us defending ourselves. The UN also is a joke and has no say in what we do. It is a corrupt orgainization whose only purpose it to try punish the US. It should be disbanded or at least, the US should pull out and kick them out of New York.

Rhuiden

Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:32 pm

What about the billions of dollars they are recieving from rich Saudi families?

Plus, the UN was founded by the US, in the democratic spirit the US was trying to bring to the world then. To dismantle it is a sign that the US does not care about democracy.
phpbb

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:38 pm

If I may interpose a bit of realism to the discussion about abortion:

If a male could get pregnant, abortion would be a non issue: it would be legal -- END OF DISCUSSION!

As to the much belittled United Nations, if the US did not veto every resolution that came its way, or did not bully other nations, or paid up its dues, maybe the UN would succeed in making the world a better place for all.

BTW, I am still waiting to hear what Bush's qualifications are (if any) to be President.

~PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:41 pm

Emma_85 wrote:What about the billions of dollars they are recieving from rich Saudi families?

Plus, the UN was founded by the US, in the democratic spirit the US was trying to bring to the world then. To dismantle it is a sign that the US does not care about democracy.
To dismantle the UN would only be a sign that the US recoginizes it for the corrupt organization that it is and that it no longer serves the purpose that it once did. I believe that would prove that the US not only cares about democracy but is also willing to take meaningful steps to advance it.

Rhuiden

Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:48 pm

The point is though that the war was unnecessary. Saddam was not the only one and not the most important funder of terrorism, so why attack the country? Inspections, better ones, not only looking for WOMD, but also for terrorist activities for example, could have saved many lives and in the end maybe even a solution could have been found. The international community could have put pressure on Saddam. Was this war just about some sort of revenge??? I'm not saying nothing should have been done about Iraq, it's a disgrace that until then nothing had been done about them not letting inspectors in for example, but not a war, and one at that which was not just a threat - I mean I talked to the commander of one of the UK warships before the war at Christmas, he said there would be war what ever Saddam does. That doesn't sound right to me, and it's also the reason the inspectors were never allowed to finish their job. There was going to be war whatever the inspectors find or did not find, what ever concessions Saddam was going to make.

Edit: Bill Clinton on the issue:
The former US president told the BBC that UK intelligence on the activity of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was more "aggressive" than Washington's.

He added that the world was right to demand weapons inspections in 2002.

But he said war could have been avoided if the UN had passed a resolution threatening military action.

Such a resolution would have given the inspectors more time to finish their job, he said.

However, the former president added, the resolution's failure left UK Prime Minister Tony Blair with a "terrible dilemma" - whether to back the US military action or join European allies in opposing it.

Mr Clinton was speaking ahead of Lord Butler's report, which said the accuracy of British intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war was seriously flawed.
I'm not saying the UN isn't corrupt, I wish someone would do something about the corruption. If the EU parliament is corrupt, which it is, should we just get rid of it or try to reform it?
phpbb

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:15 pm

The clause in the First Amendment only prohibits the government from creating or promoting a state sponsored religion. It does not mean that religion cannot be a part of government.
What I demonstrated was the fallacy of this assertion.

A prohibition of a single law is insufficient to provide the protection. It is the entire range of such laws that are prohibited. Because the government can not interact equitably with all religions, thereby promoting no one religion over any other, it may not interact with any religion. This is the principle of the separation of church and state established by the first clause. And the second clause closes the loophole whereby the government may get around the first by preventing the practice of all but one religion.
I understand the system of checks and balances....but today the judges are overstepping their bounds and neither of the other branches are willing to try to stop them. In Mass. last year (or earlier this year), judges TOLD the legislature that they had a certain length of time to make a law allowing gay marriage.
You say you understand the system then demonstrate otherwise.

Marbury vs. Madision establishes the function of the judicial branch, and only the judicial branch, of interpretation the Constitution. Neither Congress nor the Executive branch has that authority.

(Before considering tinkering with that authority, you might want to consider that this was one of the major causes for the Civil War: who interprets the Constitution?)

The Massachusetts case is, of course, a state issue, and so the federal government is not involved nor should not be involved. What the Massachusetts Supreme Court told the Massachusetts legislators (which, by the way, they did not have to do and it was unusual for them to do) was that they were about to rule that a law was not in accordance with the State's constitution. The normal procedure would have been to just simply hand down the ruling and invalidate the proscription. At that point, a writ of mandamus would have been issued to compel the state to issue the marriage license. The Massachusetts Constitution was used as one of the models for the national constitution and was written by John Adams. It is a remarkable document and was adopted almost without change from his first draft. At that time, the issue of gay marriage didn't exist.
When are we going to get back to the Constitution, the way it was written and intended by the founding fathers?
John Adams had no thoughts on gay marriage. For that matter, neither did Madison, Hamilton, Washington, or any other delegate to the constitutional convention. As I recall, they all had a fairly definitive view that religion was a personal matter which the government should not be involved with at all.
Many believe that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document. I do not.
Then, if you're honest, you should agree with Massachusetts. There's still a nagging issue that if the Constitution isn't a living document then there really isn't any need to amend it. How does one then explain the detailed plan devised for amending it? Or why it was amended immediately after it was adopted?

Without such amendments, what would be the state of affairs?

- Freedom of religion is out.
- Slavery is legal.
- The Confederated States of America is a sovereign nation.
- States are allowed to prevented citizens from voting.
- No income tax.
- Poll tax is legal.
- Women may not vote.
- Gerald Ford was never President. There was no president from 1973-1976.
- The voting age varies from state to state.
- Outgoing senators and congressmen can vote themselves a huge pay raise just before leaving office.
phpbb

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:44 pm

For this free-for-all, a moment of levity:

Image
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:40 pm

Yeah, Will is doing the only proper thing, hehehe. I was wondering whether or not in the end Godwin's law would end this discussion or not (sort of hoped not, but well, you never know with the way this thread is going, had a sort of bad start too :P .)
phpbb

classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:11 am

Wow, William, THAT shut me up right then! :P

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:17 am

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's Law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Interesting. I had never heard of this.

Rhuiden

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:25 am

annis wrote:For this free-for-all, a moment of levity:

Image
I have two questions:
  • 1. Is that an American jet fighter?

    2. How do you guys add the snazzy images to your posts?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:36 am

PeterD wrote:I have two questions:
  • 1. Is that an American jet fighter?
I'd actually seen an image much like this (perhaps the same) about a month ago with a slightly different annotation. :)

I found this with a google image search on "MIG" and "fire" so I assume this is Russian.
2. How do you guys add the snazzy images to your posts?

Code: Select all

[img] some url [/img]
And for the URL you just point to some image. So, I have two versions of this image on my own personal web server. The image is not uploaded to textkit.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:51 am

Thanks, William, especially for the Chicago Homer link.

Before we wrap up the thread, I have a couple of more questions.

Is that you in the avatar? And, if so, which museum were you visiting? Would it be The Acropolis Museum?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:01 am

The British Archaeological Museum? Those are the Elgin marbles, no?

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:04 am

classicalclarinet wrote:The British Archaeological Museum? Those are the Elgin marbles, no?
I think you're right. And if that is the case, I do hope they return them back. :cry:
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:24 am

PeterD wrote:Is that you in the avatar?
That is me, looking at the Elgin Marbles.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Post Reply