Re: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism. The "war on terror" needs to include domestic terrorists too!!!!
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
> WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic
> received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was
> shot to death Sunday as he served as an usher during morning services
> at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was
> in the choir at the time of the shooting
>
> According to the National Abortion Federation, Tiller was the eighth
> U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977, and 17 others had been
> targeted with attempted murder
>
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TILLER_SHOOTINGSITE=VAROA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>>> So much for the overated Xitan moral foundation of (phony)> righteousness..>> Ken> An Atheist and Proud of itYou idiot. The actions of this person is not representative of the teachingsof the original Christian, Jesus. Nor is it representative of all Christiansin general.But, in the interest of fairness, Let's examine both sides of the equationand see how we can apply your thinking to atheism.deaths by the state in China stand at 65 million, in the USSR 20 million,Vietnam 1 million,North Korea 2 million,Cambodia 2 million,Eastern Europe 1 million,Latin America 150,000,Africa 1.7 million, andAfghanistan 1.5 million.Additionally, the international Communist movement murdered about 10,000people throughout the world."These crimes were perpetuated by leadership and groups that were *atheist*.Therefore we can say "So much for the overrated Atheist moral foundation of(phony) right!
eousness". The same Atheist moral standards and righteousnessthat has been bragged about right here on this new group by atheistthemselvs..adman.http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_crimes.htm
hersheyh
> Ken wrote:
> > WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic
> > received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was
> > shot to death Sunday as he served as an usher during morning services
> > at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was
> > in the choir at the time of the shooting
>
> > According to the National Abortion Federation, Tiller was the eighth
> > U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977, and 17 others had been
> > targeted with attempted murder
>
> eousness". The same Atheist moral standards and righteousnessthat has been bragged about right here on this new group by atheistthemselvs..adman.http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_crimes.htm
Who, of any intelligence and perception, would think that atheism,
agnosticism, or belief in The One True God [TM] *necessarily* makes
one moral and immune to the sorts of fanaticism and intolerance that
*all* humans are capable of? Atheism and agnosticism merely removes
the excuse of being able to claim that whatever horrors and human
sacrifices that are committed was done in the furtherance of God's/
Allah's Holy Will. Atheists/agnostics can certainly substitute other
excuses (furtherance of the people's progress, becoming the new
proletarian man, whatever). Evil is banal, common-place, and
available to all of us; part of human nature.
Boikat
> Ken wrote:
> > WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic
> > received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was
> > shot to death Sunday as he served as an usher during morning services
> > at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was
> > in the choir at the time of the shooting
>
> > According to the National Abortion Federation, Tiller was the eighth
> > U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977, and 17 others had been
> > targeted with attempted murder
>
> eousness". The same Atheist moral standards and righteousnessthat has been bragged about right here on this new group by atheistthemselvs..adman.http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_crimes.htm
So, you're saying that this was a revenge killing?
Boikat
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> Ken wrote:
> > WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic
> > received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was
> > shot to death Sunday as he served as an usher during morning services
> > at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was
> > in the choir at the time of the shooting
>
> > According to the National Abortion Federation, Tiller was the eighth
> > U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977, and 17 others had been
> > targeted with attempted murder
>
> eousness". The same Atheist moral standards and righteousnessthat has been bragged about right here on this new group by atheistthemselvs..adman.http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_crimes.htm
Not all murders by Christians are *because the others are perceived as
not True Christian®. But many of them have been. You can argue that
Cromwell was simply a conqueror laying waste to native Irish, but the
Crusades can only be described as a religious war.
Atheists don't kill because others aren't atheist. The wars and
pogroms have been because some small group of people wanted power.
Outside the war, most of the folks Stalin killed were Jewish (a hated
ethnic minority), or perceived threats to his power. Pol Pot didn't
give a damn. He was a psychopath interested only in having power over
whomever survived his mass killings. There may have been some during
China's ravages by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the
1960s, altho the main targets were the liberal bourgeoisie, who were
not generally Christian.
There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
as arbitrarily, given the chance.
Kermit
Burkhard
> On May 31, 7:41 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>
> > Ken wrote:
> > > WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic
> > > received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was
> > > shot to death Sunday as he served as an usher during morning services
> > > at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was
> > > in the choir at the time of the shooting
>
> > > According to the National Abortion Federation, Tiller was the eighth
> > > U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977, and 17 others had been
> > > targeted with attempted murder
>
> > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TILLER_SHOOTINGSITE=VAROA&S...>>> So much for the overated Xitan moral foundation of (phony)> righteousness..>> Ken> An Atheist and Proud of itYou idiot. The actions of this person is not representative of the teachingsof the original Christian, Jesus. Nor is it representative of all Christiansin general.But, in the interest of fairness, Let's examine both sides of the equationand see how we can apply your thinking to atheism.deaths by the state in China stand at 65 million, in the USSR 20 million,Vietnam 1 million,North Korea 2 million,Cambodia 2 million,Eastern Europe 1 million,Latin America 150,000,Africa 1.7 million, andAfghanistan 1.5 million.Additionally, the international Communist movement murdered about 10,000people throughout the world."These crimes were perpetuated by leadership and groups that were *atheist*.Therefore we can say "So much for the overrated Atheist moral foundation of(phony) right!
> > eousness". The same Atheist moral standards and righteousnessthat has been bragged about right here on this new group by atheistthemselvs..adman.http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_crimes.htm
>
> Not all murders by Christians are *because the others are perceived as
> not True Christian®. But many of them have been. You can argue that
> Cromwell was simply a conqueror laying waste to native Irish, but the
> Crusades can only be described as a religious war.
>
> Atheists don't kill because others aren't atheist.
> Kermit
I suppose one could count Robespierre's "Religion of reason" during
the French revolution
Chris
> So, you're saying that this was a revenge killing?
>
> Boikat
In the mind of the assailant it sure was. People have to realize that
extremism often leads to extremism.
Chris
> Not all murders by Christians are *because the others are perceived as
> not True Christian(R). But many of them have been. You can argue that
> Cromwell was simply a conqueror laying waste to native Irish, but the
> Crusades can only be described as a religious war.
I don't want to careen off topic here. Christian Europe fought many
wars against Islam, the Moors, etc. I'm not making an excuse for the
crusades necessarily, but there's a good deal more analysis of them
then most are aware.
> Atheists don't kill because others aren't atheist. The wars and
> pogroms have been because some small group of people wanted power.
> Outside the war, most of the folks Stalin killed were Jewish (a hated
> ethnic minority), or perceived threats to his power. Pol Pot didn't
> give a damn. He was a psychopath interested only in having power over
> whomever survived his mass killings. There may have been some during
> China's ravages by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the
> 1960s, altho the main targets were the liberal bourgeoisie, who were
> not generally Christian.
I've heard this line before. The atheists didn't kill on account of
atheism, and of course this is true. Atheism is nothing, lacks
anything in the way of a moral code. Zilcho, nada. There certainly
wasn't anything intrinsic about their atheism that prevented them
from complying w/the demands of those dictatorial monsters, and most
people killed by communists (oh what does the Black Book compute, over
100,000,000 at this point, and in the 20th century alone) ＷＥＲＥ THEIR
OWN COUNTRYMEN. And those regimes took pains to remove religious
influences from the social sphere.
> There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> as arbitrarily, given the chance.
then why hasn't it been done???
> Kermit
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
(snip)
> > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> then why hasn't it been done???
>
Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
[M]adman
Would that be anything like painting a wall white means you get a white
wall?
Chris
> On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> > then why hasn't it been done???
>
> Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
Oh, like they already have in England.
Turns out that on the Friday before Memorial Day Obama widened the
possibility of internment w/o due process. Look it up for yourself.
And it's the Republicans we have to worry about. Now Megan
McCain...that's another story...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
The Dems now have a single-party state.
Chris
> The Dems now have a single-party state.
What party? Do you see any cause for celebration? It's more like the
hangover after the party sans the actual celebration!
Louann Miller
47e9-bbb6-d...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> The Dems now have a single-party state.
If so, it's because the Republicans kept shooting themselves in the foot
until they finally got access to fragmentation grenades.
A single party state is always and everywhere an inherently bad
situation. (Argue among yourselves whether two or more than two is the
better of the alternatives.) But the Democracts can hardly be expected to
pick up the pieces of the Republican Party and rebuild it into something
viable.
All the OTHER stuff the Republicans smashed up in the past eight years
may be the Democrats' job to fix, now that they have power. But fixing
the Republicans is something the Republicans will have to grow up and do
their own damn selves.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6c8d0c5a-2786-
No argument from me.
Nevertheless, a single-party state, of whatever party, MUST be kept an
eye on.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I have not seen anything to celebrate from either the Dems or the
Repugs, for the past 40 years.
Chris
O boy here we go. Bush was excessive in his spending, but then does
it follow that Obama has the right to run up the debt/deficit far
higher? The reason this guy likely won is because the media has been
bashing Bush for the last 5 years. One of the biggest problem is the
single party media machine.
Chris
> On Jun 2, 7:55 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 7:21 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Dems now have a single-party state.
>
> > What party? Do you see any cause for celebration? It's more like the
> > hangover after the party sans the actual celebration!
>
> I have not seen anything to celebrate from either the Dems or the
> Repugs, for the past 40 years.
It's all relative. There is much much cause for mourning under this
administration though.
What would you like to see in a candidate for 2012 may I ask?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Someone who will finally absolutely and without reservations declare
that the US is not a privileged nation, and that it will comply with
international law, all of it, and will make every possible legal
effort to try, convict and punish everyone from all the previous
administrations, of any party, who allowed violations of international
law to occur.
Until the US ceases to be an outlaw state which feels it can quite
literally do whatever it wants, there is no reason for the
international community to listen to anything we say.
Either the law applies to everybody, or it doesn't apply to anybody.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> but then does
> it follow that Obama has the right to run up the debt/deficit far
> higher?
Perhaps it's time the US re-discovers Keynes, since "laissez-faire"
has already been such a disaster.
The entire Repug yelling and moaning about the debt is just another
excuse to cut government spending. The entire Repug strategy for the
past 30 years has been to cut government money off, so it CAN'T do
anything even if we want it to.
Katrina was the first public acknowledgement that this stragey
produces nothing but disaster. We need an effective government. And
we have to PAY for one. And if an effective government can't pay for
itself with taxes, it has no choice but to borrow what it needs.
The "free-marketers" should be HAPPY about that. Just look at all the
money all that Keynesian government borrowing puts into the economy
(and corporate pockets).
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Absolutely. But this won't last.
Kermit
Chris
ok thanks. Thanks for showing everyone that your primary concern is
destroying American sovereignty. And that you're nuttier then a bushel
of walnuts.
Just out of curiosity, what country out there do you advocate turning
over our sovereignty to? Don't just cop out and say the Haigue. Which
society is fit to tell us what to do w/our business? Why is it that
this country has become a bastion for civility and human rights?
Canada, just over our northern border is banning types of speech in a
big way for instance. There many examples in England also. What is it
you want to do w/this great country???
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Ah, yes. Quite right.
Actually, I am not an historians, and expected far more protests from
my undoubtedly oversimplistic history lesson.
But Madman was making a common accusation: if a tyrant was atheist,
then everything he did was "for atheism".
Atheists *do (sometimes) kill because others are not, but they usually
have different motives. Even the religious wars are perhaps often (not
always) best described as simply tribal wars.
Of course the larger numbers of deaths from twentieth century tyrants
derive from larger populations, better transport, and of course better
mass killing tools. I think we can predict that the next religious
tyrant to start genocide will set new records, which will hold until
the next one after *him... if there is one.
Kermit
Chris
> On Jun 3, 11:29 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > but then does
> > it follow that Obama has the right to run up the debt/deficit far
> > higher?
>
> Perhaps it's time the US re-discovers Keynes, since "laissez-faire"
> has already been such a disaster.
That didn't answer the question. Besides when the gov't gets involved
(i.e the Community Reinvestment Act, and many many other intrusions)
is W-H-E-N we get into trouble. I'm not an ultra strict laissez-faire
capitalist, but it's these egreqious intrusions into capitalism that
causes the problems. You're an utter fool.
> The entire Repug yelling and moaning about the debt is just another
> excuse to cut government spending. The entire Repug strategy for the
> past 30 years has been to cut government money off, so it CAN'T do
> anything even if we want it to.
I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to say. Most Americans
advocate smaller gov't regardless. You're in a pitiful minority.
> Katrina was the first public acknowledgement that this stragey
> produces nothing but disaster. We need an effective government. And
> we have to PAY for one. And if an effective government can't pay for
> itself with taxes, it has no choice but to borrow what it needs.
PAY PAY PAY. Natural disasters will occur. There's a better argument
to bolster the infrastructure to minimize the damage. What do you do
when tornadoes touch down though? Are they unavoidable?
> The "free-marketers" should be HAPPY about that. Just look at all the
> money all that Keynesian government borrowing puts into the economy
> (and corporate pockets).
GM just declared bankruptcy (due largely to the gas crisis). National
unemployment is doubled what it was about 1-1.5 years ago. Obama is
doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the problem. The economy could do an
absolute about face in 6 months probably if they cut taxation rates,
including to corporation (hey Ireland experienced a massive boom when
they did it. It became attractive for companies to set up shop in
Ireland, and jobs were created and E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E benefited). Obama
in not interested in fixing things though. He likes to see America get
torn down.
Chris
you can easily attribute the carnage caused by 20th century atheism to
the naturalistic (i.e God-less) underlying philosophies provided for
in evolution and Marxism. Despite the technology, guns just don't fire
themselves. Technology doesn't have to used to take life, but in those
instances it was. There was the will to comply w/despotic butchers,
and their atheism didn't prevent them from complying, because in
effect the state replaced God. And when God is removed from the
equation, anything is permissible.
The Ukrainians were just starved to death remember. About 10,000,000.
And this was prior to the Holocaust even.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 3, 9:50 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6c8d0c5a-2786-
> > 47e9-bbb6-d038c03fb...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > The Dems now have a single-party state.
>
> > If so, it's because the Republicans kept shooting themselves in the foot
> > until they finally got access to fragmentation grenades.
>
> > A single party state is always and everywhere an inherently bad
> > situation. (Argue among yourselves whether two or more than two is the
> > better of the alternatives.) But the Democracts can hardly be expected to
> > pick up the pieces of the Republican Party and rebuild it into something
> > viable.
>
> > All the OTHER stuff the Republicans smashed up in the past eight years
> > may be the Democrats' job to fix, now that they have power. But fixing
> > the Republicans is something the Republicans will have to grow up and do
> > their own damn selves.
>
> O boy here we go. Bush was excessive in his spending,
Not merely excessive, but apparently determined to channel taxpayer
dollars into the hands of a few rich CEOs as quickly as possible.
While he surely had multiple stupid motives, everything he did makes
sense in light of this.
> but then does
> it follow that Obama has the right to run up the debt/deficit far
> higher?
Clearly he does. Is it wise? I dunno; I'm hoping, but I fear that as
smart as he seems to be, he is still stuck thinking inside the box.
But many folks have ideals, and given the power, would quickly become
ineffective because they wouldn't have been able to get anything done,
since the wouldn't "compromise" their values.
Maybe Obama is picking a course that he thinks will result in the most
possible good. Or maybe he's just taking advice from folks who have
vested interests.
> The reason this guy likely won is because the media has been
> bashing Bush for the last 5 years.
Ha! You're kidding, right?
They didn't question his lies during the Kerry campaign.
They didn't call him out on Iraq.
Bidless contracts? Corrupting government science? Torture? Energy
policies written by corporate sharks?
Bashing! They've handled him with kid gloves. Or more likely, just
journalistic incompetency and cowardice.
> One of the biggest problem is the
> single party media machine.
Like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Fox "news", Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Kermit
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(looks around)
Yeah, that whole "smaller government less intrusion into the free
market" thingie has really been working out well, hasn't it . . . . .
Oh, and Obama hates America. He's probably a Muslim.
No wonder the rightwingnuts can't win elections. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(strains of national anthem in background)
(yawn)
"Patriotism" is by far one of the sillier human inventions.
Mike L
> On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> > > then why hasn't it been done???
>
> > Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
>
> of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
> Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
> Oh, like they already have in England.
Well, as so often in t.o., a little clarification would help. If I
understand the UK situation, traditional Jewish and Muslim arbitration
is privately available here in civil matters if the parties want it.
Heck, if the parties want it, they can ask /you or me/ or the local
brothel-keeper to arbitrate. The same applies in the United States: I
don't see how you could stop it in a free country even if you wanted
to. There was indeed talk of making such arbitration legally binding
by mutual agreement, or something like that; but I'm ignorant of those
details. Nobody's going to get executed for working on the Sabbath, or
have his hand cut off for stealing, or any of that medieval stuff.
> Turns out that on the Friday before Memorial Day Obama widened the
> possibility of internment w/o due process. Look it up for yourself.
A case of "Yes, we can. But no, we won't"?
> And it's the Republicans we have to worry about. Now Megan
> McCain...that's another story...
--
Mike.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Does the US, in your view, have to follow international law, or
doesn't it.
Which is it.
If the US does have to follow international law, then why do you
object to ENFORCING it?
If the US does NOT have to follow international law, then why does
Rwanda, Serbia, Kampuchea, the Sudan, or anyone else have to?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> The reason this guy likely won is because the media has been
> bashing Bush for the last 5 years. One of the biggest problem is the
> single party media machine.-
Yeah, by golly, the press was all OVER Bush during his term of
office.
(sigh)
No wonder you guys can't win elections.
I'm not sure what you mean by "single party media", though --- is it
your opinion that Fox News is, uh, too liberal . . . . ?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jun 3, 8:29 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 9:50 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6c8d0c5a-2786-
> > > 47e9-bbb6-d038c03fb...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > The Dems now have a single-party state.
>
> > > If so, it's because the Republicans kept shooting themselves in the foot
> > > until they finally got access to fragmentation grenades.
>
> > > A single party state is always and everywhere an inherently bad
> > > situation. (Argue among yourselves whether two or more than two is the
> > > better of the alternatives.) But the Democracts can hardly be expected to
> > > pick up the pieces of the Republican Party and rebuild it into something
> > > viable.
>
> > > All the OTHER stuff the Republicans smashed up in the past eight years
> > > may be the Democrats' job to fix, now that they have power. But fixing
> > > the Republicans is something the Republicans will have to grow up and do
> > > their own damn selves.
>
> > O boy here we go. Bush was excessive in his spending,
>
> Not merely excessive, but apparently determined to channel taxpayer
> dollars into the hands of a few rich CEOs as quickly as possible.
> While he surely had multiple stupid motives, everything he did makes
> sense in light of this.
>
No surprise there, though. After all, Obama's economic team consists
of pretty much the same Wall Street guys who (1) got us into the mess
in the first place and (2) were in charge of the Bush economic team
too.
It should not be surprising that they hold the attitude "what's good
for our Wall Street pals is good for America".
> > but then does
> > it follow that Obama has the right to run up the debt/deficit far
> > higher?
>
> Clearly he does. Is it wise? I dunno; I'm hoping, but I fear that as
> smart as he seems to be, he is still stuck thinking inside the box.
> But many folks have ideals, and given the power, would quickly become
> ineffective because they wouldn't have been able to get anything done,
> since the wouldn't "compromise" their values.
>
> Maybe Obama is picking a course that he thinks will result in the most
> possible good. Or maybe he's just taking advice from folks who have
> vested interests.
Keep in mind, too, that Bush is also fighting the leadership of his
own party. The Dem leadership went along with the entire Bush
program, uncomplainingly. They all would have been entirely happy
coronating Hillary, who would have carried out all the essentials of
the Bush program just like her husband did. But alas, for the Dem
leadership, the insurgency of Ned Lamont slapped them all in the face,
then the much larger insurgency of Obama put them all on their ass.
They didn't want him, they didn't want his program, and they are not
helping it along. They aren't on his side. They never were.
>
> > The reason this guy likely won is because the media has been
> > bashing Bush for the last 5 years.
>
> Ha! You're kidding, right?
> They didn't question his lies during the Kerry campaign.
> They didn't call him out on Iraq.
> Bidless contracts? Corrupting government science? Torture? Energy
> policies written by corporate sharks?
> Bashing! They've handled him with kid gloves. Or more likely, just
> journalistic incompetency and cowardice.
>
To the rightwingnuits, of course, anything short of kissing Bush's ass
and shouting "Yes sire!", is "bashing".
The rightwingers are all authoritarian nuts, and they don't tolerate
anything less than total obedience. They don't like dissent of any
sort. Just ask Arlen Specter.
> > One of the biggest problem is the
> > single party media machine.
>
> Like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Fox "news", Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Yeah, all those poor oppressed conservatives. You'd think they are
all just innocent bystanders, and HADN'T been, ya know, running the
country as a virtual single-party state for the past two
administrations . . . . .
Burkhard
> On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> > > then why hasn't it been done???
>
> > Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
>
> of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
> Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
> Oh, like they already have in England.
You are suddenly against freedom of contract? Because that is what
happens here, parties agreeing in civil matters what type of law/
jurisdiction is applicable. .
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And you would be wrong doing so, since the Leninist rejected Darwinian
evolution as "bourgeoise" and imposed the more ideologically-
acceptable but totally-wrong Lysenko version of biology instead. For
years, it was illegal to even teach "darwinism" in the USSR.
And of course, the biggest murderers of the 20th century, the Nazis,
all went into battle with "God Is With Us" inscribed on their army-
issue belt buckles.
Want to conduct an experiment? Find an online version of "Mein
Kampf". Count how many times "Darwin" or "evolution" is mentioned.
Then count how many times "God" or "The Almighty" or "The Creator" is
mentioned.
Tell us what you find.
Chris
OMG what does freedom of contract have to do w/anything??? Muslims are
bound by the civil law just as much as anyone else is, including
homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
marriage.
I'm am totally against Muslims creating these little enclaves whereby
they can, in effect, treat women like garbage. This is not to say that
their little rulings are necessarily all bad. But I am for the
separation of church and state in some fashion. Small enclaves of
muslims, "Christians", Jews or whoever defying societal constructs is
just crazy.
Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
?
Atheism is just lack of belief in gods.
What support do you have for the claim that "anything goes" if gods
are removed from the equation? Luther, Cromwell, Torquemada, and many
other show clearly that *having gods in the equation is no protection
against vicious behavior. Having a humane value system is what is
necessary for civilized behavior, not theology.
You won't find many genocidal sociopaths among Western humanists, for
example, but you can among various communists. The difference isn't in
whether they believe in any gods, but whether or not they learned to
value human life and civilization.
Be honest: do you really see any moral difference between Pol Pot and
Cromwell? Or Stalin and Martin Luther?
Kermit
Burkhard
> On Jun 3, 1:24 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 June, 00:11, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > > > > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > > > > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> > > > > then why hasn't it been done???
>
> > > > Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
>
> > > of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
> > > Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
> > > Oh, like they already have in England.
>
> > You are suddenly against freedom of contract? Because that is what
> > happens here, parties agreeing in civil matters what type of law/
> > jurisdiction is applicable. .
>
> OMG what does freedom of contract have to do w/anything???
Well, because that is how Sharia law, to the extend that it happens,
is recognised by UK court. Parties to a contract write in the general
part of their agreement that it should be interpreted accoring to
Sharia rules, or at a Sharia court. This happens for instance in loan
agreements with Islamic banks (prohibition of interest). It is of
course equally possible for two Christians, atheists or Buddhists to
specify that the contract should be interpreted using Sharia contract
or property law, and UK courts will give this provision effect
(provided it does not contravene obviously with the order public, a
rule that limits all freedom of contract)
Ralph
Really? I haven't noticed where we stone people. Read the Old Testament
Chris, and get back to us about our constructs being based on the bible.
SkyEyes
Don't make me laugh, I'm not through eating my lunch yet. TMM kissed
Bush's and the Republican Party's collective ass for 8 years. We
would never have gone into Iraq had TMM been doing their job instead
of giving Bush and Cheney metaphorical blow jobs.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jun 3, 1:24 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 June, 00:11, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > > > > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > > > > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> > > > > then why hasn't it been done???
>
> > > > Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
>
> > > of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
> > > Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
> > > Oh, like they already have in England.
>
> > You are suddenly against freedom of contract? Because that is what
> > happens here, parties agreeing in civil matters what type of law/
> > jurisdiction is applicable. .
>
> OMG what does freedom of contract have to do w/anything??? Muslims are
> bound by the civil law just as much as anyone else is
They sure are. And as long as their contract doesn't violate civil
law, neither the state nor you can do dick about it. (shrug)
>, including
> homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
> marriage.
Do you find it a bit odd that the very same group of people who oppose
civil rights for gays, also opposed civil rights for African-
Americans?
Is there anything about that which strikes you as a bit . . .
uncomfortable . . .?
> I'm am totally against Muslims creating these little enclaves whereby
> they can, in effect, treat women like garbage. This is not to say that
> their little rulings are necessarily all bad. But I am for the
> separation of church and state in some fashion. Small enclaves of
> muslims, "Christians", Jews or whoever defying societal constructs is
> just crazy.
> Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
Really? Can you tell me which part of Western law makes the
descendents of someone who breaks a law, responsible for those
crimes . . . . ?
Deuteronomy 23:
2: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even
to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of
the LORD.
3: An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the
congregation of the LORD for ever:
Exodus 20:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me;
Exodus 34:
7: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression
and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's
children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Numbers 14:
18: The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity
and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation.
Genesis 3:
14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done
this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy life:
So go ahead and explain to me how "just" it is to punish someone for
something his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great grandfather did several centuries ago.
Oh, and about that last one, the fundies keep telling me that it was
SATAN who disguised himself as a snake to fool Eve into eating the
apple. So, in addition to explaining why all unborn snakes forever
and ever were punished because of something their ancestor did 6000
years ago, you might want to explain why the snake was punished at all
if it wasn't even the snake that did it. Or do you believe in, uh,
talking snakes . . . .
Have fun armwaving.
Desertphile
<loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6c8d0c5a-2786-
> 47e9-bbb6-d...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> > The Dems now have a single-party state.
What the bloody fuck is "dems?"
> If so, it's because the Republicans kept shooting themselves in the foot
> until they finally got access to fragmentation grenades.
>
> A single party state is always and everywhere an inherently bad
> situation. (Argue among yourselves whether two or more than two is the
> better of the alternatives.) But the Democracts can hardly be expected to
> pick up the pieces of the Republican Party and rebuild it into something
> viable.
For the past eight years we have a one-party country, and it will
take fifty years and more to recover, if we ever do. The
world-wide effect of that disaster will negatively impack our
great-grandchildren.
> All the OTHER stuff the Republicans smashed up in the past eight years
> may be the Democrats' job to fix, now that they have power. But fixing
> the Republicans is something the Republicans will have to grow up and do
> their own damn selves.
There is a simple yet effective solution: BAN POLITICAL PARTIES.
It would require a Constitutional amendment, but it could be done.
That would be the first step into turning the USA into a
democracy.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Louann Miller
news:9j1e25lv559pefkjm...@4ax.com:
> There is a simple yet effective solution: BAN POLITICAL PARTIES.
> It would require a Constitutional amendment, but it could be done.
> That would be the first step into turning the USA into a
> democracy.
The US constitution does not mention or require political parties. We
originally had no political parties. This lasted one election, which may
be the longest such record in history.
Humans in groups are just LIKE that. Heck, primates are just like that
(De Waal). If you were able to word a 'political parties forbidden'
amendment to the US constitution and get it passed, the same behavior
under some other name would spring up ten minutes later.
Prohibition was easy (and successful) by comparison. This would be like
outlawing sex.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Minor quibble, from an ex-Brit. I believe that the term is 'crowning',
not 'coronating', since the coronation is the ritual of putting on the
crown.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Prohibition was easy (and successful) by comparison.
> This would be like outlawing sex.
The Shakers tried outlawing sex, and they were entirely
successful. That's why there are no more Shakers.
xanthian.
"Want the consequences of what you want."
Louann Miller
@news.albasani.net:
> The Shakers tried outlawing sex, and they were entirely
> successful. That's why there are no more Shakers.
Like the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, to which I say "You go do
that. Good luck."
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote in news:h07iko$24o$1
Back in the 80's when I was doing environmental-labor organizing, I
often ran into the folks from Earth First!, who would go on and on
about how humans were destroying the planet and the only way to save
the planet was to remove all the humans. I promptly offered to drive
them to the nearest bridge so they could jump off and help solve the
problem. Oddly, they always had some excuse or another . . . .
I have noticed, about Malthusians of all stripes, that whenever they
say that "our" population needs to be reduced, what they really mean
is "YOUR" population needs to be reduced.
Dick C.
news:63ce30b9-5511-44a7...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 3, 12:45 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Actually, I am not an historians, and expected far more protests from
>> my undoubtedly oversimplistic history lesson.
>>
>> But Madman was making a common accusation: if a tyrant was atheist,
>> then everything he did was "for atheism".
>>
>> Atheists *do (sometimes) kill because others are not, but they
>> usually have different motives. Even the religious wars are perhaps
>> often (not always) best described as simply tribal wars.
>>
>> Of course the larger numbers of deaths from twentieth century tyrants
>> derive from larger populations, better transport, and of course
>> better mass killing tools. I think we can predict that the next
>> religious tyrant to start genocide will set new records, which will
>> hold until the next one after *him... if there is one.
>>
>> Kermit
>
> you can easily attribute the carnage caused by 20th century atheism to
> the naturalistic (i.e God-less) underlying philosophies provided for
> in evolution and Marxism.
Easily, perhaps, but not honestly. It matters not what the politcal -
religious - philosophical basis the tyrant uses. What matters is that
he is most likely a psychopath.
Despite the technology, guns just don't fire
> themselves. Technology doesn't have to used to take life, but in those
> instances it was. There was the will to comply w/despotic butchers,
> and their atheism didn't prevent them from complying, because in
> effect the state replaced God. And when God is removed from the
> equation, anything is permissible.
> The Ukrainians were just starved to death remember. About 10,000,000.
> And this was prior to the Holocaust even.
On the other hand, there are many instances of those who claim the moral
highroad of religion that perform many despicable acts. And it should be
noted that the deeply religous Germans went along with Hitler's plans.
For one thing, they were also deeply bigoted. It does not take much to
learn that the Russians were afraid of the Germans conquering them
because of the way the Germans treated anyone they thought were lesser
humans. Which pretty much meant anyone east of Germany.
Stalins murders can be attributed to his power and the fact that he did
not care about anything except keeping himself in power.
The same can be said of any dictator, and dictators tend to kill those
they fear may rebel against them.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Desertphile
<loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
> news:9j1e25lv559pefkjm...@4ax.com:
>
> > There is a simple yet effective solution: BAN POLITICAL PARTIES.
> > It would require a Constitutional amendment, but it could be done.
> > That would be the first step into turning the USA into a
> > democracy.
> The US constitution does not mention or require political parties. We
> originally had no political parties. This lasted one election, which may
> be the longest such record in history.
The Constitution does, however, mandate freedom of association---
that is why banning political parties would require an ammendment.
> Humans in groups are just LIKE that. Heck, primates are just like that
> (De Waal). If you were able to word a 'political parties forbidden'
> amendment to the US constitution and get it passed, the same behavior
> under some other name would spring up ten minutes later.
>
> Prohibition was easy (and successful) by comparison. This would be like
> outlawing sex.
>
AC
Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:24 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 3 June, 00:11, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > (snip)
>>
>> > > > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
>> > > > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
>> > > > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>>
>> > > > then why hasn't it been done???
>>
>> > > Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
>>
>> > of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
>> > Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
>> > Oh, like they already have in England.
>>
>> You are suddenly against freedom of contract? Because that is what
>> happens here, parties agreeing in civil matters what type of law/
>> jurisdiction is applicable. .
>
> OMG what does freedom of contract have to do w/anything??? Muslims are
> bound by the civil law just as much as anyone else is, including
> homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
> marriage.
Could you define "true marriage"? I mean, in some parts of the world, "true
marriage" involves more than two people. Or did you mean to say "the
marriage my upbringing and religious beliefs insist must be true".
> I'm am totally against Muslims creating these little enclaves whereby
> they can, in effect, treat women like garbage.
I hope you feel the same about Southern Baptists.
> This is not to say that
> their little rulings are necessarily all bad. But I am for the
> separation of church and state in some fashion. Small enclaves of
> muslims, "Christians", Jews or whoever defying societal constructs is
> just crazy.
The issue here is contracts. If I enter a contract with you, and we both
agree to abide by the laws of Pastafarianism, then that's the contract.
Providing any or all of the dictates of Pastafarianism don't violate any
laws, it's hard to see how you could justify banning that contract.
I'm always bemused by those believe that more freedom can be accomplished by
limiting freedoms.
> Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
No, they are not. The legal system of virtually all English speaking
countries is largely based on Anglo-Saxon common law, and its roots are in
pagan Germanic law. Continental Law, by and large, is based one way or the
other on Roman law, which is pagan as well. Our democracies are largely
based on some mixture of Greco-Roman notions (certainly it's with the Greeks
that we owe the genesis of Western political theory).
I don't know where you guys get these ideas from, considering that
Washington DC is essentially one big temple dedicated to the ancient
Athenian Republic.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Dan Listermann
"Chris" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca939388-cbe3-47c8...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
>
That is a good bit of imagination!
.
Chris
> "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
actually you're right. I didn't word that as I should have. The moral
underpinnings are Christian. Contrasted w/Islamic, Buddhist/Hindu. If
you feel there's a better way of describing what we are fundamentally
(though it's obvious America and the Christian west as a whole is
moving away from it's foundations).
Chris
Now that is absolutely the first time I've ever heard that! Thank
you!!
> What support do you have for the claim that "anything goes" if gods
> are removed from the equation? Luther, Cromwell, Torquemada, and many
> other show clearly that *having gods in the equation is no protection
> against vicious behavior. Having a humane value system is what is
> necessary for civilized behavior, not theology.
It's not a matter of "theology", though I imagine you're utilizing a
loose usage of the term. It's about morals. Why did the Communists
work so hard to remove religious influences from society, and in fact
all freedoms altogether. To associate, to think, to discuss. You can
make the argument that philanthropism is born out of the freedoms
themselves, and that may be true to a small degree. But compare
American and European societies (sans the Nazis and Commies) to other
regions of the world. India/Pakistan, the Middle East, the Orient. In
which parts of the world is freedoms and peace engendered? China has
yet to cast off it's communist reigns (although they are trying, and
I'm for them, and especially for the 100,000,000 Christians that have
to stay underground to avoid imprisonment and torture). But at the
root non-Christian societies don't have anywhere near the humanitarian
environment we have here. Widow burning in India, organ trading in the
Orient. Look at the atrocities the Japanese committed during WWII.
This doesn't mean they're fundamentally inferior, I'm not saying that.
But civilizations influenced by anything other then Christ just are
that "different".
> You won't find many genocidal sociopaths among Western humanists, for
> example, but you can among various communists. The difference isn't in
> whether they believe in any gods, but whether or not they learned to
> value human life and civilization.
The Commies didn't believe in God at all. Some like to call Hitler a
Christian. Otay as long as you ignore the bits about how he designated
Paul a heretic of sorts because he cast the Jews in a favorable light
in the NT. And many of his henchmen were atheists besides.
It's not about just believing in a "god" or "gods". But specifically
what God you venerate. But I am persuaded though that some type of
faith (generally) is better then none at all. Not that I'm making a
case for other faiths. It's simply an analysis.
> Be honest: do you really see any moral difference between Pol Pot and
> Cromwell? Or Stalin and Martin Luther?
I see a huge difference between PP & C*. And STALIN AND LUTHER??? Are
you even serious??? And I'm not relieving them of the guilt for the
wrongs they did do. But please how can you even find the basis for
comparison??!!
> Kermit
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jun 4, 2:40 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ca939388-cbe3-47c8...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> > > civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
>
> > That is a good bit of imagination!
>
> actually you're right. I didn't word that as I should have. The moral
> underpinnings are Christian. Contrasted w/Islamic, Buddhist/Hindu.
Here, let me repeat my question:
Can you tell me which part of Western law OR MORALITY makes the
Have fun armwaving.
Chris
A contract is a contract. It doesn't have to be "based" on anything.
The parties specify the terms. They're free to do that.
Are you for favoring any specific party in the case of marriage, or do
you favor equality? Muslims marriages, I think I would have to say,
are totally stacked in favor of the man.
Why would a Christian or Buddhist base their contractual agreement on
Sharia Law???
Chris
Hey Ray, do me this favor - explain to me just why the Old Testament
is specified Old??? Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
The evidence is rapidly vanishing before everyone's eyes.
Chris
Umm tell me what job TMM was supposed to do in determining if the WMDs
were even there? That's nonsense, and is fallacious. The congress
supported the invasion of Iraq (and that lying little pig Pelosi also
supported waterboarding - this is not perfectly clear for everyone).
Whether or not you agree w/the decision is your affair. But everyone
was of the persuasion, back into the Clinton administration, that SH
had WMDs. And REFUSED to comply w/UN inspections. It may have been
foolhardy or not based on the best analysis. But to state the media
played anything in the way of a significant role is pretty baseless.
In fact when good things started happening in Iraq, the media dragged
it's feet to cover it.
But regarding elections...
Websearch
news:80b3726a-5792-44d5-8eb5-3cbb8cb9197e@
> Not merely excessive, but apparently determined to channel taxpayer
> dollars into the hands of a few rich CEOs as quickly as possible.
> While he surely had multiple stupid motives, everything he did makes
> sense in light of this.
What you are describing seems to be a conservative reflex. In the UK, we've
been given very little detailed information about what David Cameron's
Conservative Party would do once in office -- but one thing we do know is
that they have a firm and specific commitment to cutting the level of
Inheritance Tax that applies to the 3000 richest people in the country...
W.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hey Chris, tell me again which part of the Bible contains all that law
and commandments that you claim our Western Culture is based
on . . . . . . ?
Is it your opinion that the Old Testament doesn't count anymore? If
so, I have a few questions for you . . . . . .
Websearch
news:9910e91f-687d-4694-9ace-4f5a6c61b36b@z14g2000yqa.
> Well, as so often in t.o., a little clarification would help. If I
> understand the UK situation, traditional Jewish and Muslim arbitration
> is privately available here in civil matters if the parties want it.
> Heck, if the parties want it, they can ask /you or me/ or the local
> brothel-keeper to arbitrate. The same applies in the United States: I
> don't see how you could stop it in a free country even if you wanted
> to.
I've only heard vague rumours about what goes on and what has been proposed;
what bothers me is the idea of courts operating according to unacceptably
primitive and discriminatory principles -- such as a woman's testimony being
worth half that of a man's. It doesn't seem acceptable to me that a woman
can voluntarily opt for a situation that accords her inferior rights.
W.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
That's right. And if they decide they want their contract based on
Sharia law, they're free to do that, as long as they are not violating
any state laws. And nobody else has dick to say about it.
>
> Are you for favoring any specific party in the case of marriage, or do
> you favor equality? Muslims marriages, I think I would have to say,
> are totally stacked in favor of the man.
Ever hear of "Promise Keepers", Chris . . . . ?
Oh, and in the New Testament, Paul tells women not to speak in
church. Do you agree with that, Chris?
I would very very very much like to hear you make the case that in the
Bible women and men are treated equally. Go ahead. This should be
fun.
> Why would a Christian or Buddhist base their contractual agreement on
> Sharia Law???-
Um, which ones are doing that . . . ?
And who is saying that they have to . . . . ?
You fundies aren't terribly bright, are you. No WONDER you can't win
elections.
Chris
> On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 1:24 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 June, 00:11, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 1, 3:36 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 1, 1:46 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > There are tens of millions of Americans who would institute a system
> > > > > > > of laws every bit as severe as Sharia, and would probably enforce it
> > > > > > > as arbitrarily, given the chance.
>
> > > > > > then why hasn't it been done???
>
> > > > > Because the Republicans lost their single-party state.
>
> > > > of course of course. The Republicans. But this Republican is afraid of
> > > > Sharia style courts and whatnot eventually infiltrating our system.
> > > > Oh, like they already have in England.
>
> > > You are suddenly against freedom of contract? Because that is what
> > > happens here, parties agreeing in civil matters what type of law/
> > > jurisdiction is applicable. .
>
> > OMG what does freedom of contract have to do w/anything??? Muslims are
> > bound by the civil law just as much as anyone else is
>
> They sure are. And as long as their contract doesn't violate civil
> law, neither the state nor you can do dick about it. (shrug)
And it doesn't make it any easier purchance that they have "private"
courts ruling in their favor...
> >, including
> > homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
> > marriage.
>
> Do you find it a bit odd that the very same group of people who oppose
> civil rights for gays, also opposed civil rights for African-
> Americans?
Wrong. Christian pastors opposed and effectively lobbied for the end
of slavery. Are you not aware of this? Even loony John Brown based his
delusions on the OT.
> Is there anything about that which strikes you as a bit . . .
> uncomfortable . . .?
Not one bit.
First explain to me how God set a seal on Cain so not to be murdered.
Iniquity certainly is in effect "visited" on the descendants, in the
sense that children suffer for the choices their parents make. God
related certain truths in that way in a way that people can understand
them. That's the best way I can phrase it.
Concentrate on the NT. Or is it just the sites you visit need to
dredge up the worst sounding passages, most of which are contained in
the OT.
> Oh, and about that last one, the fundies keep telling me that it was
> SATAN who disguised himself as a snake to fool Eve into eating the
> apple. So, in addition to explaining why all unborn snakes forever
> and ever were punished because of somethinFig their ancestor did 6000
> years ago, you might want to explain why the snake was punished at all
> if it wasn't even the snake that did it. Or do you believe in, uh,
> talking snakes . . . .
>
> Have fun armwaving.
Snakes in a sense were humiliated. They no less capable of defending
themselves then other animals, and in some ways much better. What's
your point? Sharks can't sleep, not in the ways that we do. Does that
amount to a punishment, seeing God created them also?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> "Mike L" <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Well of course it wasn't too long ago that women had no civil rights
under the law, and I don't recall hearing about hordes of fundies
rushing out to change that.
And within my own lifetime, African-Americans had no civil rights
under the law either, and hordes of fundies actively OPPOSED changing
that.
And today gays have no civil rights under the law, and hordes of
fundies act like our friend Chris . . . .
Whenever a fundie talks about "freedom" and "rights", they always mean
THEIRS. They don't care about anyone else's.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Pity the poor oppressed billionnaires. It must be a horrible life for
them.
Websearch
Websearch
> Snakes in a sense were humiliated. They no less capable of defending
> themselves then other animals, and in some ways much better. What's
> your point? Sharks can't sleep, not in the ways that we do. Does that
> amount to a punishment, seeing God created them also?
>
I have to say: I cannot see any way whatsoever in which a person who gives
an answer like that can be psychiatrically healthy or mentally competent.
W.
Mark Isaak
>> OMG what does freedom of contract have to do w/anything??? Muslims are
>> bound by the civil law just as much as anyone else is, including
>> homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
>> marriage.
>
> Could you define "true marriage"?
Duh. A true marriage is marriage between one Christian male and one
Christian female of the same race which is duly licensed by the state and
which ends in divorce within seven years.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Burkhard
If there is a dispute, the contract has to be interpreted. To do so,
they have to specify the applicable law. If they don't, this in turn
becomes a question for the judge to decide, typically, but not
necessarily, the law of the country were it was made. To avoid this,
parties can, and frequently do, specify the applicable law. Look at
the "small print"
in some of the contract you have, e.g. with your ISP. You'll
typically find a clause that says something like: US law is
applicable, New York is the jurisdiction where contractual disputes
will be settled.
Freedom of contract means the parties can agree on pretty much
anything they want on this. if e were to make a contract here, we
could specify that the applicable law is that of Papua New Guinea and
Port Moresby the relevant court. Or we could agree on a non-state
law, like lex mercatoria. We could even agree (and it has been done)
on the law of the Intergalactic federation, but that is a really bad
idea and likely to piss of the judge big time.
And of course we could agree on Canon law, Sharia law etc.
> Are you for favoring any specific party in the case of marriage, or do
> you favor equality? Muslims marriages, I think I would have to say,
> are totally stacked in favor of the man.
>
As practised in most Islamic jurisdictions, arguably, though you might
be pleasantly surprised if you look at the actual doctrine. (I was,
when I became external examiner for a course in comparative law where
it was taught and read the essays)
Now, in one way of looking at it, marriage is simply a form of
contract. But traditionally one which leaves the parties the least
room for manoeuvre. However, if you jurisdiction recognised prenuptial
agreements, then you can again use contracts to "shape" the marriage
relation (well, the legal part of it) pretty much how you want. Or you
could of course equally avoid the "official" marriage altogether and
again use contract law to regulate your relation - this is what same
sex couples typically do if there is no recognised civil partnership,
and it would be one way for a Muslim couple too (they would then use
the model of Islamic marriage but treat it as ordinary contract, I
mean)
> Why would a Christian or Buddhist base their contractual agreement on
> Sharia Law???
For a laugh, or maybe they like the specific version of "good faith"
doctrine in contract? Another more realistic example: The idea of
"prohibition of charging interest" was traditionally part of Christian
belief too, and some of the more radical groups still adhere to it.
But since Christian countries gave this up as a state doctrine a long
time ago, they do not really have a developed doctrine of how e.g. to
draft a mortgage contract that avoids the issue. A pretty reliable way
would be for them to say that their mortgage agreement is governed by
Sharia banking law.
But the point I wanted to make was another. Just that this is not a
"special rule" for Muslims, but that everybody can, if they so choose,
graft Sharia law into their private law relations.
Dan Listermann
The moral underpinnings of any form of government are the instincts of any
social animal. If you need to be reminded, humans are a kind of animal.
Religions try to codify these instincts, but invariably distort them with
superstition, usually producing wasteful results. Evil is waste, not the
other way around.
.
Burkhard
I don't think this argument works, there is a "continuity clause"
here:
Matthew 5:17 and 18
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Alas, you can't do dick about it. Sorry if you don't like it.
>
> > >, including
> > > homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
> > > marriage.
>
> > Do you find it a bit odd that the very same group of people who oppose
> > civil rights for gays, also opposed civil rights for African-
> > Americans?
>
> Wrong. Christian pastors opposed and effectively lobbied for the end
> of slavery. Are you not aware of this? Even loony John Brown based his
> delusions on the OT.
Now explain to us why so many Christians SUPPORTED slavery, and quoted
from the Bible to justify it. Are you not aware of THAT?
THEN you can explain to me why all those private Southern Bible
schools were established just after the Brown v Board of Ed ruling.
And THEN you can explain to me why all those Souther segregationists
quoted the Bible to oppose the civil rights movement (and why the KKK
still TODAY claims to be a Biblically-based Christian organization,
and why the official nname of the Aryan NAtions is actually "Church of
Jesus Christ Christian").
Are you not aware of this?
>
> > Is there anything about that which strikes you as a bit . . .
> > uncomfortable . . .?
>
> Not one bit.
I thought not.
What's that got to do with punishing the descendents for the crimes of
their ancestors . . . ?
> Iniquity certainly is in effect "visited" on the descendants, in the
> sense that children suffer for the choices their parents make. God
> related certain truths in that way in a way that people can understand
> them. That's the best way I can phrase it.
That's not what it says. Read it again.
>
> Concentrate on the NT.
OK, so the OT doesn't count and we don't have to follow it. Got it.
Great.
No more Ten Commandments.
But now I'm even more curious -- if we don't have to follow things in
the OT, then what is your basis for concluding that God doesn't want
anyone to be gay? What verse in the NT forbids anyone from being gay,
or forbids gays from being married.
>Or is it just the sites you visit need to
> dredge up the worst sounding passages, most of which are contained in
> the OT.
Quit waving your arms and just answer the goddamn question.
By what definition of "just" is it that descendents should be punished
for things their ancestors did, and what part of American law or
morals adheres to that Biblical principle.
>
> > Oh, and about that last one, the fundies keep telling me that it was
> > SATAN who disguised himself as a snake to fool Eve into eating the
> > apple. So, in addition to explaining why all unborn snakes forever
> > and ever were punished because of somethinFig their ancestor did 6000
> > years ago, you might want to explain why the snake was punished at all
> > if it wasn't even the snake that did it. Or do you believe in, uh,
> > talking snakes . . . .
>
> > Have fun armwaving.
>
> Snakes in a sense were humiliated.
For what reason. Why were they "humiliated". What did snakes do that
merited punishment or humiliation. Please be specific.
>They no less capable of defending
> themselves then other animals, and in some ways much better. What's
> your point? Sharks can't sleep, not in the ways that we do. Does that
> amount to a punishment, seeing God created them also?-
You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again.
*ahem*
The Bible says a talking snake convinced Eve to eat the fruit, so God
cursed all snakes, forever and ever and ever, for the actrions of
their ancestor. How is that "just", and what American law is based on
that principle of "punishing the descendents"?
And if, as fundies like to argue, it was NOT really a talking snake,
but was Satan in disguise, then why did God punish snakes for
something that Satan did, and how is it "just" to punish someone
because somebody ELSE pretended to be him?
Start waving your arms.
Websearch
news:837f8f5e-2fc7-4346...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 4, 3:44 pm, "Websearch" <Websea...@Websearch.com> wrote:
>
>> What you are describing seems to be a conservative reflex. In the UK,
>> we've
>> been given very little detailed information about what David Cameron's
>> Conservative Party would do once in office -- but one thing we do know is
>> that they have a firm and specific commitment to cutting the level of
>> Inheritance Tax that applies to the 3000 richest people in the country...
>>
>
> Pity the poor oppressed billionnaires. It must be a horrible life for
> them.
I have seen some up close. Quite a while back I had a girlfriend who had six
cars and a 5-storey property in London's Belgravia next-door to the house of
a government minister. I was in touch with her again recently about
something. Turns out she'd been trying to sell her house for a while -- and
told me that she'd seen its value fall from �6,000,000 to �5,000,000 in just
half a year. The horror.
Cameron is an interesting case in several ways. He's meant to look like a
'candidate for change' -- a moderniser and a break from the old-fashioned
'squires and shires' Tory Party. Yet he has a �30 million fortune -- most of
it inherited -- and his wife is [something like] the daughter of a Baronet
[or whatever]. And Cameron says that it's his wife who keeps him in touch
with reality...! Oh, and guess what: Cameron believes in the 'Laffer
curve'... Naturally...!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-are-we-silent-as-cameron-preaches-voodoo-economics-1691107.html
W.
Burkhard
> "Mike L" <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Mhh, take a look at the contract from your bank on your current
account, or your ISP, and you might find they made you their bitch ;o)
This is also half of the answer to your specific question: depending
on which jurisdiction you are in, the courts will more (continental
Europe) or less (UK and US) aggressively use "good faith" provisions
to prevent this from happening. They do this for instance in cases
where an economically weak and inexperienced party sigend away too
many rights in a contract. It is potentially a significant
restriction to freedom of contract though *just how free were you
_really_, how much was "economic necessity" etc)
Evidence law would not normally be affected by the contractual
agreements of the parties, though they could (an often will) try.
Insurance companies for instance will sometimes require that you have
two experts if you claim damages, but they need only one to show there
wasn't one .
To have a gender specific clause of this type might well fall foul of
overriding "ordre public" , but this a question of careful drafting
more than substantive content.
Matt Silberstein
Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> in
<e208603a-1a97-404b...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 4, 9:30 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote in news:h07iko$24o$1
>> @news.albasani.net:
>>
>> > The Shakers tried outlawing sex, and they were entirely
>> > successful. That's why there are no more Shakers.
>>
>> Like the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, to which I say "You go do
>> that. Good luck."
>
>
>
>Back in the 80's when I was doing environmental-labor organizing, I
>often ran into the folks from Earth First!, who would go on and on
>about how humans were destroying the planet and the only way to save
>the planet was to remove all the humans. I promptly offered to drive
>them to the nearest bridge so they could jump off and help solve the
>problem. Oddly, they always had some excuse or another . . . .
>
>I have noticed, about Malthusians of all stripes, that whenever they
>say that "our" population needs to be reduced, what they really mean
>is "YOUR" population needs to be reduced.
I am willing to take same chance as everyone else, but no more or
less. I think the solution is to give everyone in the world a number,
then kill those with even numbers. If it does not work we can try it
with the odd numbers.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
AC
Um, if you go through a private arbitration process, that's the same damned
thing. Are you saying that specifically, for Muslims, you wish to outlaw
private arbitrations?
>
>> >, including
>> > homosexuals, although they're managing to erode the notion of true
>> > marriage.
>>
>> Do you find it a bit odd that the very same group of people who oppose
>> civil rights for gays, also opposed civil rights for African-
>> Americans?
>
> Wrong. Christian pastors opposed and effectively lobbied for the end
> of slavery. Are you not aware of this? Even loony John Brown based his
> delusions on the OT.
You'd better look up the history of the Southern Baptist Convention. There
were Christian ministers on both sides of the slavery debate.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
AC
>
> "Chris" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8f880502-6b76-41ce...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 4, 2:40 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>> "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ca939388-cbe3-47c8...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
>>> > civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
>>>
>>> That is a good bit of imagination!
>>
>> actually you're right. I didn't word that as I should have. The moral
>> underpinnings are Christian. Contrasted w/Islamic, Buddhist/Hindu. If
>> you feel there's a better way of describing what we are fundamentally
>> (though it's obvious America and the Christian west as a whole is
>> moving away from it's foundations).
>>
>
> The moral underpinnings of any form of government are the instincts of any
> social animal. If you need to be reminded, humans are a kind of animal.
> Religions try to codify these instincts, but invariably distort them with
> superstition, usually producing wasteful results. Evil is waste, not the
> other way around.
I often wonder how much religion really does influence morality. I suppose
there are always specific examples (like the banning of blood sport
games after the Christianization of Rome), but in general, it seems to me
that, at least as far as the West is concerned, Christianity has more often
than not simply been a vehicle of apologism. Current economic needs require
we replace all the Indians we killed off with smallpox and overwork be
replaced, well, fancy that, those dark-skinned folks from Africa must have
been the children of Cain, so they're a sub-standard, cursed lot. A few
centuries later, and suddenly, because the Enlightenment had finally
trickled down enough, slavery isn't good at all, God created all men equal,
and enslaving people is bad (let's remember here, that this is all based on
a book that actual has rules ON keeping slaves).
The morals of any culture change over time, period. Religions also change
over time. Maybe there's a bit more of a feedback loop than I can see, but
for the most part, it strikes me that religion is the slave of current
fashions. In fact, it's often the case that religion can remain somewhat
conservative in certain moral positions, where the populace is simply of
another mind (ie, Western Catholics and birth control and women's rights).
The notions that the United States, in particular, were founded on, were not
Christian principles, but Enlightenment principles, and Enlightenment
thinkers weren't always the true-blue Christian types some folks think.
Guys like Thomas Jefferson were decidedly anti-Christian in some of their
views, and Deism seems to have been much in vogue in those days (before US
politicians were forced to shout the word "God" at least once a week). As I
mentioned in another post, one look at Washington DC's monuments doesn't
make you think "Wow, those guys were Christians". The whole thing seems
designed as a temple to Classical Greece, which is the fountainhead of
modern Western thought, as the Founding Fathers very well knew (and
reflected in the architecture, both of state buildings and even in homes of
the more well-to-do of the time).
So, while it's now fashionable for social conservatives in many Western
countries like the US and the UK to go around lecturing the rest of us on
how our laws and morals are all based on Biblical ideals, it seems hard to
support those claims when you actually look at the history of our
civilization. Christianity certainly had a massive influence, no doubt
about it, but then again, I consider modern Christianity to have been as
much the invention of the late and post-Roman peoples that took it up as the
religion that managed to make it into the 4th century AD (and even that
earlier form of Christianity is heavily influenced by Aristotle, as much as
it ever was by Judaism).
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Or, to put it much more succinctly, "People choose their religion --
it does not choose them".
They always pick the one they like.
Desertphile
<chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2:40 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:ca939388-cbe3-47c8...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> > > civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
> >
> > That is a good bit of imagination!
> actually you're right. I didn't word that as I should have. The moral
> underpinnings are Christian.
No they aren't: they're anti-Christianity and have been for over
200 years. Democracy is the exact opposite of Christian morality.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "Chris" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ca939388-cbe3-47c8...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> > civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
What book, chapter, and verse are cars mentioned in?
> That is a good bit of imagination!
I suspect his cult guru imagined it for him.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> Democracy is the exact opposite of Christian morality.
>
Indeed, "Heaven" sounds more to me like North Korea than like a
democracy.
Of course, the fundies, being authoritarians to the core, don't mind
that at all.
Louann Miller
news:frng251rm0u6v2dgg...@4ax.com:
>> actually you're right. I didn't word that as I should have. The moral
>> underpinnings are Christian.
>
> No they aren't: they're anti-Christianity and have been for over
> 200 years. Democracy is the exact opposite of Christian morality.
George III said so at the time, and did we listen?
I'm less than half kidding. Religion seems to wear away naturally when a
country has been a democracy and an industrial nation long enough. We (USA)
just don't notice much because we're the statistical outlier.
Walter Bushell
<e208603a-1a97-404b...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 9:30�am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote in news:h07iko$24o$1
> > @news.albasani.net:
> >
> > > The Shakers tried outlawing sex, and they were entirely
> > > successful. That's why there are no more Shakers.
> >
> > Like the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, to which I say "You go do
> > that. Good luck."
>
>
>
> Back in the 80's when I was doing environmental-labor organizing, I
> often ran into the folks from Earth First!, who would go on and on
> about how humans were destroying the planet and the only way to save
> the planet was to remove all the humans. I promptly offered to drive
> them to the nearest bridge so they could jump off and help solve the
> problem. Oddly, they always had some excuse or another . . . .
>
> I have noticed, about Malthusians of all stripes, that whenever they
> say that "our" population needs to be reduced, what they really mean
> is "YOUR" population needs to be reduced.
>
>
Some do restrict the number of children they have on principle. Of
course, they will be out competed by those who don't.
OBSF: _The Mote in God's Eye_.
Walter Bushell
Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
> Louann Miller wrote:
>
> > Prohibition was easy (and successful) by comparison.
> > This would be like outlawing sex.
>
> The Shakers tried outlawing sex, and they were entirely
> successful. That's why there are no more Shakers.
>
> xanthian.
>
> "Want the consequences of what you want."
The children they adopted did not always stay. The were allowed to leave
and given a stake. They took in a lot of orphans when there were few
positions open to them.
Walter Bushell
"Websearch" <Webs...@Websearch.com> wrote:
Can a woman "voluntarily" opt for such a situation when the alternative
may be ostracism from the only society she knows?
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 3, 3:33 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>[...]
>> Don't make me laugh, I'm not through eating my lunch yet. TMM kissed
>> Bush's and the Republican Party's collective ass for 8 years. We
>> would never have gone into Iraq had TMM been doing their job instead
>> of giving Bush and Cheney metaphorical blow jobs.
>
> [...] But everyone
> was of the persuasion, back into the Clinton administration, that SH
> had WMDs. And REFUSED to comply w/UN inspections. It may have been
> foolhardy or not based on the best analysis.
So what? It was obvious that Saddam was helpless to harm the U.S. even
if every warehouse in Baghdad were stocked to the rafters with WMDs.
There's this ocean, see, which is sort of hard to cross with a land-based
army. The only way he could hurt us is to refuse to cooperate with UN
inspectors and hope that a really stupid leader would send Americans to
him.
> But to state the media
> played anything in the way of a significant role is pretty baseless.
The media played an essential role in stirring up mass hysteria, and
without the hysteria, there would have been no war.
> In fact when good things started happening in Iraq, the media dragged
> it's feet to cover it.
I freely admit that I am ignorant of the role of the media in the
second millennium BC.
SkyEyes
Except, of course, for the ones who *didn't*. The entire Southern
Baptist Convention was created in order to uphold slavery.
And in these modern times, there were many, many christian pastors and
congregations who preached *against* equal rights in general and
Martin Luther King specifically. My family were members of such a
church. The fiery sermons against voting rights and MLK that
thundered from the pulpit were both memorable and contrary to
everything that Jesus ever taught - although they were suppported by
scripture, naturally.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot not
Walter Bushell
<63ce30b9-5511-44a7...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And when God is removed from the
> equation, anything is permissible.
And this is different from when D-G is in the picture and His
representative orders a pogrom, exactly how?
Walter Bushell
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If so, it's because the Republicans kept shooting themselves in the foot
> until they finally got access to fragmentation grenades.
Too bad they didn't aim higher and take themselves out of the gene pool.
But no, they had to put America's penis in the pickle slicer.
Walter Bushell
<ffd04c47-6bd3-41eb...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:29�am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > but then does
> > it follow that Obama has the right to run up the debt/deficit far
> > higher?
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's time the US re-discovers Keynes, since "laissez-faire"
> has already been such a disaster.
>
> The entire Repug yelling and moaning about the debt is just another
> excuse to cut government spending. The entire Repug strategy for the
> past 30 years has been to cut government money off, so it CAN'T do
> anything even if we want it to.
>
> Katrina was the first public acknowledgement that this stragey
> produces nothing but disaster. We need an effective government. And
> we have to PAY for one. And if an effective government can't pay for
> itself with taxes, it has no choice but to borrow what it needs.
>
> The "free-marketers" should be HAPPY about that. Just look at all the
> money all that Keynesian government borrowing puts into the economy
> (and corporate pockets).
And, in fact, a lot of money was destroyed in the crash and will be.
(Whether the money was real or just imaginary is something the
metaphysicians will have to debate, however people *acted* as if the
value of their house or stock or whatever was real money.)
Walter Bushell
<837f8f5e-2fc7-4346...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:44�pm, "Websearch" <Websea...@Websearch.com> wrote:
> > <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:80b3726a-5792-44d5-8eb5-3cbb8cb9197e@
> >
> > > Not merely excessive, but apparently determined to channel taxpayer
> > > dollars into the hands of a few rich CEOs as quickly as possible.
> > > While he surely had multiple stupid motives, everything he did makes
> > > sense in light of this.
> >
> > What you are describing seems to be a conservative reflex. In the UK, we've
> > been given very little detailed information about what David Cameron's
> > Conservative Party would do once in office -- but one thing we do know is
> > that they have a firm and specific commitment to cutting the level of
> > Inheritance Tax that applies to the 3000 richest people in the country...
> >
>
>
> Pity the poor oppressed billionnaires. It must be a horrible life for
> them.
>
Why the poor dears might be reduced to wearing $300 shoes (Exc VAT) and
the days of going to the club and buying $1000 bottles might be over.
How can people used to the finer things in life get by with such
frugality?
Walter Bushell
"Websearch" <Webs...@Websearch.com> wrote:
> I have seen some up close. Quite a while back I had a girlfriend who had six
> cars and a 5-storey property in London's Belgravia next-door to the house of
> a government minister. I was in touch with her again recently about
> something. Turns out she'd been trying to sell her house for a while -- and
> told me that she'd seen its value fall from �6,000,000 to �5,000,000 in just
> half a year. The horror.
Especially since the pound has fallen relative to the dollar and
probably the Euro. No more shopping trips to upscale Manhattan shops.
Walter Bushell
<8f880502-6b76-41ce...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2:40 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:ca939388-cbe3-47c8...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Of course I don't have to mention that America's and most of western
> > > civilization's constructs are based on the bible.
> >
> > That is a good bit of imagination!
>
> actually you're right. I didn't word that as I should have. The moral
> underpinnings are Christian. Contrasted w/Islamic, Buddhist/Hindu. If
> you feel there's a better way of describing what we are fundamentally
> (though it's obvious America and the Christian west as a whole is
> moving away from it's foundations).
Roman law and English common law derived from pre Christian law.
Walter Bushell
<72cc8e56-3018-4083...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> And in these modern times, there were many, many christian pastors and
> congregations who preached *against* equal rights in general and
> Martin Luther King specifically. My family were members of such a
> church. The fiery sermons against voting rights and MLK that
> thundered from the pulpit were both memorable and contrary to
> everything that Jesus ever taught - although they were suppported by
> scripture, naturally.
Jesus never sent a slave back to his master or there is not the hint of
a document to that effect. OTOH, he didn't have to found a world wide
religious institution, neither.
Walter Bushell
>
> Except, of course, for the ones who *didn't*. The entire Southern
> Baptist Convention was created in order to uphold slavery.
Exactly they split over the question of whether a minister could own
slaves. Of course, if slavery was disallowed for ministers, then it
would imply the institution was tainted.
Wombat
> In article <QqWVl.86$sm...@newsfe21.ams2>,
>
The pound has fallen relative to the Euro. It reached parity over the
New Year but now is hovering around 1.13 or so.
Wombat
Matt Silberstein
<chris...@yahoo.com> in
<eaadb499-2ca7-4619...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>Umm tell me what job TMM was supposed to do in determining if the WMDs
>were even there? That's nonsense, and is fallacious. The congress
>supported the invasion of Iraq (and that lying little pig Pelosi also
>supported waterboarding - this is not perfectly clear for everyone).
>Whether or not you agree w/the decision is your affair. But everyone
>was of the persuasion, back into the Clinton administration, that SH
>had WMDs.
Nope, not at all. SH had a *program* to *develop* WMDs*. That program
was stopped with the invasion during the First Gulf War and the
Clinton administration thought that lifting sanctions would mean that
SH would restart the program.
*And we really should admit that the term WMD has no meaning anymore.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"? The only ones that are actually
significant as weapons are nuclear bombs. Chemical weapons sound very
scary, but have minimal military affect and are not particularly more
effective against civilians than conventional weapons. And biological
weapons are just plain silly. There is no conceivable reasonable
scenario where someone would have a biological weapon that would hurt
the U.S. more than the Third World. We have medical infrastructure,
they don't. So unless the pathogen targets some genetic "American"
quality it will spread through the slums of Baghdad far faster than
through the U.S. They use this general WMD term so they can point out
some chemical (phosphorus) which has lots of legitimate uses, pretend
it is for gas, and imply that SH had nuclear weapons.
So, to be very clear. No one thought that SH had nukes and the Bush
administration was very clear to not say they had them. They lied and
said that there was some magical WMD (but not nukes) that were
available "real soon". Then they waved words of magical yellowcake and
made you think that the soon to come WMD were nukes.
>And REFUSED to comply w/UN inspections.
Actually he did comply, at least according to the inspectors. He
delayed and he complained and he stomped his feet and held his breath,
but the inspectors had timely access to every site.
>It may have been
>foolhardy or not based on the best analysis. But to state the media
>played anything in the way of a significant role is pretty baseless.
>In fact when good things started happening in Iraq, the media dragged
>it's feet to cover it.
When are the good things going to happen?
> But regarding elections...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
(snip)
> So unless the pathogen targets some genetic "American"
> quality
(snip)
As a matter of information, the US has indeed carried out serious
research in that direction. The so-called "ethnic bomb" was intended
to be a pathogen that has been tagged with artificial genetics (a
large American biological warfare program during the Reagan years
involved the possibility of inserting genes for production of things
like cobra toxin or pufferfish toxin into ordinarily non-pathogenic
vectors) such that the added genes wouldn't be activated unless it
contacts a specific genetic marker found in only a narrow group of
humans. The intent was that the modified bioweapon would target only
a specific ethnic or racial group and be harmless for anyone else.
But you are correct -- biological weapons and chemical weapons are
vastly over-rated in the public mind, both as military weapons and as
terrorist weapons.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> <eaadb499-2ca7-4619-a845-0d7763086...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
Those of us who knew something about chemical weapons, alas, KNEW that
not only did Saddam not have any chemical weapons at all prior to
Dubya's invasion, but knew what happened to them. During the Iran-
Iraq War, Iraq manufactured its own nerve gas, using commercially-
available equipment normally used for producing pesticides.
Unfortunately for Saddam, the nerve gas he produced had high levels of
impurities, which caused it to degrade and break down within just a
few weeks of manufacture. The problem was so bad that Iraq stopped
stockpiling the stuff and simply shipped its nerve gas directly from
the factory to the front, where they hurriedly used it before it
became useless.
During the First Gulf War, all of Saddam's chemical weapons production
plants were destroyed, and the subsequent inspections insured that
none were rebuilt. So during the entire period between the First and
Second Iraq Wars, Saddam had no capacity to produce chemical weapons.
None at all. The Bushites, of course, were spreading the story that
Saddam had hidden away scads and scads of chemical weapons that he had
previously produced. Those of us who knew the subject, however,knew
that this was pure bullshit. None of Iraq's nerve gas was capable of
surviving more than a few weeks after manufacture. Within two months,
at most, of the end of the First Iraq War, all of Saddam's nerve gas,
every single last drop of it, had quite literally degraded into
useless goo. It was all gone.
The Bushites could not possibly have NOT known that. Which means all
of their intimations and hints to the contrary (the Bushites put out
all sorts of stories about how Saddam's nerve gas had been moved to
Syria, about how it was secretly buried under the Presidential
palaces, blah blah blah), were deliberate bullshit.
Matt Silberstein
Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> in
<8c047adc-9fb0-4997...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 6, 10:44 am, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>(snip)
>> So unless the pathogen targets some genetic "American"
>> quality
>(snip)
>
>
>
>As a matter of information, the US has indeed carried out serious
>research in that direction.
Do you have a reasonable reference for this?
>The so-called "ethnic bomb" was intended
>to be a pathogen that has been tagged with artificial genetics (a
>large American biological warfare program during the Reagan years
>involved the possibility of inserting genes for production of things
>like cobra toxin or pufferfish toxin into ordinarily non-pathogenic
>vectors) such that the added genes wouldn't be activated unless it
>contacts a specific genetic marker found in only a narrow group of
>humans. The intent was that the modified bioweapon would target only
>a specific ethnic or racial group and be harmless for anyone else.
Nice SF, reality not so much.
>But you are correct -- biological weapons and chemical weapons are
>vastly over-rated in the public mind, both as military weapons and as
>terrorist weapons.
--
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , "'Rev Dr'
> Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> in
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 6, 10:44 am, Matt Silberstein
> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >(snip)
> >> So unless the pathogen targets some genetic "American"
> >> quality
> >(snip)
>
> >As a matter of information, the US has indeed carried out serious
> >research in that direction.
>
> Do you have a reasonable reference for this?
I remember seeing references to it in the military's CBW reports back
in the 80's. Apparently the Russians were supposed to be working on
the concept too.
>
> >The so-called "ethnic bomb" was intended
> >to be a pathogen that has been tagged with artificial genetics (a
> >large American biological warfare program during the Reagan years
> >involved the possibility of inserting genes for production of things
> >like cobra toxin or pufferfish toxin into ordinarily non-pathogenic
> >vectors) such that the added genes wouldn't be activated unless it
> >contacts a specific genetic marker found in only a narrow group of
> >humans. The intent was that the modified bioweapon would target only
> >a specific ethnic or racial group and be harmless for anyone else.
>
> Nice SF, reality not so much.
Yep, apparently nothing ever came of it. But the US did spend a lot
of money researching the idea, apparently on the belief that the
Soviets were, too.
At the time, the military was in love with recombinant DNA techniques
-- they spent a great deal of money on it, and apparently hoped that
it would provide a way to really make bioweapons workable again. Most
of their effort focused on bio-toxins rather than on pathogens.
Garamond Lethe
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , "'Rev Dr'
> Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> in
> <8c047adc-9fb0-4997...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 6, 10:44 am, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>(snip)
>>> So unless the pathogen targets some genetic "American" quality
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>As a matter of information, the US has indeed carried out serious
>>research in that direction.
>
> Do you have a reasonable reference for this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/259222.stm
That mentions a report called "Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity"
authored by the British Medical Association. Hmmmm....
Try this:
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/warfare_weapons/
BioWeaponsII.jsp
(I think the Beeb refers to the first report; the above URL is a follow-
on, I'm guessing).
If you need help tracking down stuff behind paywalls, give me a shout.
<snip>
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:59:47 -0400, Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , "'Rev Dr'
> > Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> in
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Jun 6, 10:44 am, Matt Silberstein
> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>(snip)
> >>> So unless the pathogen targets some genetic "American" quality
> >>(snip)
>
> >>As a matter of information, the US has indeed carried out serious
> >>research in that direction.
>
> > Do you have a reasonable reference for this?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/259222.stm
>
> That mentions a report called "Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity"
> authored by the British Medical Association. Hmmmm....
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/warfare_weapons/
> BioWeaponsII.jsp
>
> (I think the Beeb refers to the first report; the above URL is a follow-
> on, I'm guessing).
>
> If you need help tracking down stuff behind paywalls, give me a shout.
>
During the Reagan years, the military bwas required to produce an
annual report detailing their biowarfare and chemical warfare
research. It was reprinted every year in the Congressional record.
I recall the topic being mentioned there several times. (At the time,
I was researching chemical/biological warfare for some magazine
articles I was writing.)