Does Religion Make People Better Or Worse?
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
front page ^ | 05 September 2006 | Dennis Prager
Posted on 09/05/2006 4:11:24 AM PDT by unionblue83
I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
(you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24
columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest
system of values ever devised.
However, this advocacy of religion comes with two caveats.
First, the claimed superiority of Judeo-Christian values in no way
means that all believing Jews and Christians are good people, let alone
better than all other people. There have always been and there are
today morally superior individuals in every religion. And there are
morally superior individuals among atheists and people of no organized
religion.
Second, there is no religion that has not made, or at least enabled,
some of its adherents to be morally worse than they would have been had
they not adopted that religion.
So our question is not whether there are good or bad people in every
religion. The question is whether any given religion is likely to make
one who believes in it a better or worse person than he would have been
had he not believed in that religion.
Let's begin with my religion, Judaism. I recall a young man who
attended a Jewish institute I used to direct. When he first arrived at
the institute, he was a particularly kind and nonjudgmental individual
-- and completely secular. After his month-long immersion in studying
and living Judaism, he decided to become a fully practicing Jew. When I
met him a year later he was actually less kind and was aggressively
judgmental of the religiosity of fellow Jews, including me and others
who had brought him to Judaism. In one year he had become in his eyes
holier than the teachers who brought him to religion in the first
place.
Now, of course, there are teachings in Judaism that, if honored (such
as the Prophet Micah's admonition to "walk humbly with your God"),
would have prevented him from becoming sanctimonious. But the
religion's emphasis on legal observance enabled him to count the number
of laws fellow Jews did not observe and judge them accordingly.
One major benefit of Judaism's being law-based is that it can provide
an individual with a way to regularly ascertain right from wrong, to
provide ethical rules on a daily basis. It can move him to visit the
sick when he would rather be at home watching television, to resist
gossiping, to give more charity than he otherwise would, to show honor
to parents who may not deserve it, and so much more. But it can also
lead him to judge fellow Jews by their level of ritual observance, to
substitute law worship for God worship, and can lead a Jew to retreat
from almost any social interaction with the non-Jewish world.
Within Christianity, faith in Jesus Christ can lead one to live a life
of extraordinary loving kindness and self-sacrifice in order to emulate
Jesus, whom the Christian regards as his Lord and Savior. It can also,
and has, led Christians to place so much emphasis on proper faith as to
neglect equal emphasis on proper behavior, to hunt down heretics, to
judge other people by their faith rather than by their decency (as in
Europe's wars and killing over theology). It can lead to an almost
unique support for the Jewish people -- as among American evangelical
and other conservative Christians -- and it has also led to the most
prolonged hatred of the Jews for spurning and killing Christ among
Christians in Europe.
Nearly 2,000 years of Christian domination of Europe did not prevent
most Europeans from doing nothing to protest, let alone rescue Jews
from, the Nazi genocide. On the other hand, the relative handful of
European Jews who were saved were rescued disproportionately by
religious Christians. I once asked California State University
Professor Samuel Oliner -- an authority on altruism and on rescuers of
Jews during the Holocaust, and himself a Jew who was rescued by
non-Jews -- knowing all he does now, on whose door would he knock if he
wanted to be saved from the Nazis during the Holocaust -- a doctor, a
professor, a lawyer or a priest. He answered that there was no question
that it would have been the priest.
The third monotheistic faith is Islam. There are many millions of
decent and kind Muslims in the world. But there are also at least a
hundred million Muslims (i.e., 10 percent) who support killing
innocents in the name of Allah and Islam. And there are more than that
who believe in the ideal of using force to spread Islam throughout the
world.
So the question is this: How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and
decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of
Islam?
I do not claim to have an answer. I only claim that the question is a
legitimate one that all the decent Muslims need to answer. The evil
ones repeatedly tell us how Islam is the source of their support for
murder and torture. We need to know from the good ones how Islam has
made them good.
So far we have only heard from one side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in
Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness
is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is
www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the
Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Syd M.
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
> front page ^ | 05 September 2006 | Dennis Prager
>
>
> Posted on 09/05/2006 4:11:24 AM PDT by unionblue83
>
I'd say it makes them worse.
PDW
skyeyes
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
Worse. Definitely worse.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
J Antero
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
It makes them stupider.
raven1
<soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
As the saying goes, without religion, we'd see good people doing good
things, and bad people doing bad things. But to get good people to do
bad things, nothing is as effective as religion.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Bret Cahill
Is fundyism religion?
Bret cahill
"Religion, being free and powerful in its own sphere . . ."
-- DeTocqueville
Trygve Lillefosse
>Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
Goes both ways, but my guess is for the worse. Less acceptance of
differences in lifestyles etc.
>I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
>vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
>(you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24
>columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest
>system of values ever devised.
I would say that it's one of the less good ones. The reason why it is
so widespread, is mostly due to christians forcing others to become
christians. Either trough peer pressure, war or missionaring.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
abracadabra
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
JUdging by our President, worse.
> I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
> vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
What an idiotic thing to say. Which societies had no religion, than were
improved by getting one?
> (you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24
> columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest
> system of values ever devised.
As long as you don't actually read the values, it would seem that way.
Here's a clue - a broken clock is right more often than posters at
freerepublic
GoDrex
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
it hasn't made you any less despicable
Uncle Vic
(soundof...@bluebottle.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
Hmmm....
Pastor Frank
Earthquack (Dr. Chung)
Duke (Earl Weber)
Kadaitcha Man
Dore
John P. Boatwright
Codebreaker
Skywise (AKA Raytard, AKA Richard Dawkins)
Roger Pearse
TomP
Bobandcarol
TRUECRISTIAN
Vernon
Nomen Nescio (AKA Zacharias Mulletstein)
You decide...
BTW, whatever happened to Randy Story?
Dgillespie (Denny)
Oldman Tech
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked eight times (so far) by Kadaitcha Man (and twice by his sockpuppet
"Rho-o-o-o-o-o-onda")
Sphere
I think we can put more teeth into your statement.
Any religion which teaches there is exactly one truth
tends to make people worse -- and the One God religions
are prime examples. These religions themselves have to
murder other notions of divinity in order to survive -- and
this is frequently done by killing the people who hold
these other notions of divinity. Holding the idea of One
God increases the chances that you will kill relative to
someone otherwise identical who does not hold the idea
of One God. Holding the idea of One God vastly increases
the chances that you will try to kill other people's ideas.
The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully who cannot play
well with others. It is basic to the idea of One God that
all other notions of divinity must be destroyed. Thus, the
One God idea is evil.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Sphere" <spher...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158281864.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
Well, it doesn't make them better, witness Jonestown, and Heaven's Gate, and
pedophile priests, and cheezy televangelists, and mothers who cut off the
arms of their children.
Does it make them worse? Witness the scarcity of atheists that fly airliners
into skyscrapers.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
And seems to have the same effect on its rabid opponents.
--
"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one’s
neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious
intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the
people next door are headed for hell."
-- Aleister Crowley
Pangur Ban
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 2006 13:12:17 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>> <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>> >Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>>
> Any religion which teaches there is exactly one truth
> tends to make people worse -- and the One God religions
> are prime examples. These religions themselves have to
> murder other notions of divinity in order to survive -- and
> this is frequently done by killing the people who hold
> these other notions of divinity. Holding the idea of One
> God increases the chances that you will kill relative to
> someone otherwise identical who does not hold the idea
> of One God. Holding the idea of One God vastly increases
> the chances that you will try to kill other people's ideas.
>
> The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully who cannot play
> well with others. It is basic to the idea of One God that
> all other notions of divinity must be destroyed. Thus, the
> One God idea is evil.
> ---
> No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
Hrrrrrrmmm – what of a religion which holds there is only one Divine
Spirit – but that that Divine One has many aspects?
Pang
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Edwards
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
It is DOGMA that is the problem. A religion that
is based on science is what is required, to counteract
our inherent nature of being selfish predators.
See the 3rd link of www.moatazilla.org
BFN. Paul.
J Antero
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0d1kg21akc3vepdm0...@4ax.com...
NoGall McCall's quote immediately above, is particularly inept.
He takes the position of advocating religion, then gives a quote criticizing
religionists.
Moron.
ray o'hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TXmOg.300$1f1....@eagle.america.net...
> Hilarious!
>
every religion is dependent on every other religion and on science being
flse. such is the hazard of dealing with things that claim to be the only
truth.
the actual number of gods is irrelevent. but buddism, hinduism, and
judeo/christian/islam{all facets of the same belief} all reject each other.
people make a mistake when they differentiate judaism, christianity and
islam. they all believe in the same god, the god of the old testament.
all accept the same prophets, it just where they draw the line in time. if
they were different maybe they would get along better as none could say the
others aren't doing it right.
Peter Jason
If there were no God it would be necessary to
invent him. - Voltaire.
Many people need:
1/ To be told.
2/ To follow.
3/ To be in a group.
4/ To see pretty colours.
This may not be a 'disorder' but is certainly
a personality type, and this sort are better
within the confines of a religion. Of course
problems arise when one religion rubs up
against another - and so on and on it goes.
********************
Frank
Of course there was also Origen who had himself castrated and the
generations of "pro-life" Roman popes who castrated their choir boys.
Frank.
Mike
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SPWdnfU4qKtQjZfY...@comcast.com...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TXmOg.300$1f1....@eagle.america.net...
>> Hilarious!
>>
>
> every religion is dependent on every other religion and on science being
Definitely WORSE, and how much worse depends upon the religion and
how focused one is or becomes......thank god I'm an atheist!.
ewei...@attbi.com
Sphere wrote:
> Any religion which teaches there is exactly one truth
> tends to make people worse -- and the One God religions
> are prime examples. These religions themselves have to
> murder other notions of divinity in order to survive -- and
> this is frequently done by killing the people who hold
> these other notions of divinity. Holding the idea of One
> God increases the chances that you will kill relative to
> someone otherwise identical who does not hold the idea
> of One God. Holding the idea of One God vastly increases
> the chances that you will try to kill other people's ideas.
>
> The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully who cannot play
> well with others. It is basic to the idea of One God that
> all other notions of divinity must be destroyed. Thus, the
> One God idea is evil.
Your point is valid, but only from the perspective that all religions
are false, and that there are no Gods. If there really is only one
God, then your point is moot.
Your conclusion is faulty because your logic doesn't tie to your
premise, it can be applied to anything.
Evil is defined as not following the standard of whatever is defined as
good. So evil = not good. If you set the standard for good as one
God, then more then one God or no Gods is evil. The reverse would also
be true.
Robibnikoff
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns983EB45A...@216.196.97.136...
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
> (soundof...@bluebottle.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Pastor Frank
> Earthquack (Dr. Chung)
> Duke (Earl Weber)
> Kadaitcha Man
> Dore
> John P. Boatwright
> Codebreaker
> Skywise (AKA Raytard, AKA Richard Dawkins)
> Roger Pearse
> TomP
> Bobandcarol
> TRUECRISTIAN
> Vernon
> Nomen Nescio (AKA Zacharias Mulletstein)
>
> You decide...
>
> BTW, whatever happened to Randy Story?
> Dgillespie (Denny)
> Oldman Tech
Denny popped in not too long ago. I think Oldguyteck finally croaked, no?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Joachim Pense
> Sphere wrote:
>
>> Any religion which teaches there is exactly one truth
>> tends to make people worse -- and the One God religions
>> are prime examples. These religions themselves have to
>> murder other notions of divinity in order to survive -- and
>> this is frequently done by killing the people who hold
>> these other notions of divinity. Holding the idea of One
>> God increases the chances that you will kill relative to
>> someone otherwise identical who does not hold the idea
>> of One God. Holding the idea of One God vastly increases
>> the chances that you will try to kill other people's ideas.
>>
>> The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully who cannot play
>> well with others. It is basic to the idea of One God that
>> all other notions of divinity must be destroyed. Thus, the
>> One God idea is evil.
>
> Your point is valid, but only from the perspective that all religions
> are false, and that there are no Gods. If there really is only one
> God, then your point is moot.
>
In this case, not only the One God idea would be evil, God himself
would be evil as well.
Joachim
Neil Kelsey
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
> (soundof...@bluebottle.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Pastor Frank
> Earthquack (Dr. Chung)
> Duke (Earl Weber)
> Kadaitcha Man
> Dore
> John P. Boatwright
> Codebreaker
> Skywise (AKA Raytard, AKA Richard Dawkins)
> Roger Pearse
> TomP
> Bobandcarol
> TRUECRISTIAN
> Vernon
> Nomen Nescio (AKA Zacharias Mulletstein)
>
> You decide...
>
> BTW, whatever happened to Randy Story?
(I'm afraid to say this out loud, lest I alert him, but it seems as if
duke has been awfully quiet lately. And by awfully I mean thankfully)
l...@rdfmedia.com
some worse, you might as we have asked do donuts make people better or
worse, or perhaps guns. It's too subjective to be off any real use.
Robibnikoff
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158337851.7...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
>> (soundof...@bluebottle.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> > Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>>
>> Hmmm....
>>
>> Pastor Frank
>> Earthquack (Dr. Chung)
>> Duke (Earl Weber)
>> Kadaitcha Man
>> Dore
>> John P. Boatwright
>> Codebreaker
>> Skywise (AKA Raytard, AKA Richard Dawkins)
>> Roger Pearse
>> TomP
>> Bobandcarol
>> TRUECRISTIAN
>> Vernon
>> Nomen Nescio (AKA Zacharias Mulletstein)
>>
>> You decide...
>>
>> BTW, whatever happened to Randy Story?
>
> (I'm afraid to say this out loud, lest I alert him, but it seems as if
> duke has been awfully quiet lately. And by awfully I mean thankfully)
That's because he's been messin' with the baptists. They're EXTREMELY
anti-catholic ;)
Neil Kelsey
Wow. It's like a remake of Dumb and Dumber.
Robibnikoff
LOL! Pretty much ;)
Immortalist
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
>
>
> Posted on 09/05/2006 4:11:24 AM PDT by unionblue83
>
>
>
> I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
> vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
> (you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24
> columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest
> system of values ever devised.
>
>
> First, the claimed superiority of Judeo-Christian values in no way
> means that all believing Jews and Christians are good people, let alone
> better than all other people. There have always been and there are
> today morally superior individuals in every religion. And there are
> morally superior individuals among atheists and people of no organized
> religion.
>
> Second, there is no religion that has not made, or at least enabled,
> some of its adherents to be morally worse than they would have been had
> they not adopted that religion.
>
> So our question is not whether there are good or bad people in every
> religion. The question is whether any given religion is likely to make
> one who believes in it a better or worse person than he would have been
> had he not believed in that religion.
>
Depends if the person grew up around that religion or not, like
language and accents, how once you have one and move to another country
you always have a bit of a strange accent.
But your question is about "internalization" of morals and values and
the willingness to act upon them or not. Below are three kinds of
learning, one through punishment and rewards another by "present role
model" and the other internalized independent model. If my cursory
interpretation is correct then your question would be how well religion
influences people to internalize independent morality without
dependence upon outside influence;
Compliance. The term compliance best describes the behavior of a person
who is motivated by a desire to gain reward or avoid punishment.
Typically, the person's behavior is only as long-lived as the promise
of reward or the threat of punishment. Thus, one can induce a rat to
run a maze efficiently by making it hungry and placing food at the end
of the maze. Chances are that a ruthless dictator could get a
percentage of his citizens to indicate their allegiance by threatening
them with torture if they don't comply or by promising to feed and
enrich them if they do. On the level of compliance, most researchers
see little difference between the behavior of humans and other animals
because all organisms are responsive to concrete rewards and
punishments. Thus, remove the food from the goal box and the rat will
eventually stop running; remove the food or the threat of punishment
and the citizens will cease showing allegiance to the dictator.
Identification. Identification is a response to social influence
brought about by an individual's desire to be like the influencer. In
identification, as in compliance, we do not behave in a particular way
because such behavior is intrinsically satisfying; rather, we adopt a
particular behavior because it puts us in a satisfying relationship to
the person or persons with whom we are identifying. Identification
differs from compliance in that we do come to believe in the opinions
and values we adopt, although we do not believe in them very strongly.
Thus, if we find a person or a group attractive or appealing in some
way, we will be inclined to accept influence from that person or group
and adopt similar values and attitudes-not in order to obtain a
reward or avoid a punishment (as in compliance), but simply to be like
that person or group. I refer to this as the good-old-Uncle-Charlie
phenomenon. Suppose you have an uncle named Charlie who happens to be a
warm, dynamic, exciting person; ever since you were a young child, you
loved him and wanted to grow up to be like him. Uncle Charlie is a
corporate executive who has a number of strong opinions, including a
deep antipathy to social welfare legislation. That is, he is convinced
that anyone who really tries can earn a decent wage and that, by
handing money to people, the government only succeeds in eliminating
their desire to work. As a young child, you heard Uncle Charlie
announce this position on several occasions, and it has become part of
your system of beliefs-not because you thought it through and it
seemed right to you or because Uncle Charlie rewarded you for adopting
(or threatened to punish you for not adopting) this position. Rather,
it has become part of your belief system because of your liking for
Uncle Charlie, which has produced in you a tendency to incorporate into
your life that which is his.
Internalization. The internalization of a value or belief is the most
permanent, most deeply rooted response to social influence. The
motivation to internalize a particular belief is the desire to be
right. Thus, the reward for the belief is intrinsic. If the person who
provides the influence is perceived to be trustworthy and to have good
judgment, we accept the belief he or she advocates and we integrate it
into our system of values. Once it is part of our own system, it
becomes independent of its source and will become extremely resistant
to change.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
> So the question is this: How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and
> decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of
> Islam?
>
A majority of Muslims are good people like a majority of Christians are
good people, concerned with their personal lives and their communities.
Like a majority of atheists are probably good people but there are a
few bad apple like;
- marquis deSade, Human Nature, Moral Values
The writings of the marquis de Sade are open to many interpretations.
He spent twenty-seven years in prison under five governments, before
and after the Revolution of 1789, and yet he read and wrote
prodigiously. He particularly admired La Mettrie.
I describe the Sade who carried through in his imagination a total
identification of human nature with physical nature and thus revealed
that the human condition is without any values except those that
reflect a selfish force of nature.
Sade's notoriety stems from his argument that the honest pursuit of our
nature knows no limits except death and that this pursuit, if honest,
demands endless and unbounded sexual and physical violence to others.
This, he believed, is the law of nature to which humans are
subservient. The suckling babe that bites his nurse's nipple, the
infant constantly smashing his rattle, reveal to us that a bent for
destruction, cruelty, and oppression is the first which Nature graves
in our hearts ...'
In Sade's imagination, the pursuit of our own nature, our pleasure,
depends on causing others to suffer pain and death. The Viennese
medico-legal specialist Richard Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) later
introduced the term 'sadism' to describe the enjoyment of sexual
violence.
Sade's prose was an obsessive struggle to imagine yet more pain and
hence a more intense acceptance of nature.
- He wrote of virgins whose buttocks are whipped to a pulp before they
are split open by anal intercourse, but their flesh is restored so that
it can begin all over again.
- Alternatively, he described ejaculation at the moment of murder only
then to invent an ingenious machine to make possible pleasure at
sixteen simultaneous murders.
It is as if the only thing left when we have fully identified man with
nature is pain and orgasmic pleasure, which he treated as much the same
thing, and both have continually to be found anew. Perhaps he grasped
at the immediacy and all-consuming quality of pain and the orgasm as
the only value left once moral injunctions are discarded as dishonest.
...Nature, it seemed to Sade, seeks death, and the moment of death
offers the fantasy of a moment of pleasure; but beyond this moment and
beyond death there is and can be nothing.
His work described an extremity in relation to which it is necessary to
decide how to live. Sade was a student of medicine and the materialist
philosophy of nature which - as he showed - recreated the image of what
it is to be human. Long sections of his works were disquisitions on
'the designs of Nature, of whom we are the involuntary instruments',
sections where he developed the logic of materialism.
Ah, you pedants, hangmen, turnkeys,
lawmakers, you shavepate rabble,
what will you do when we have arrived
... [at knowledge of the
human constitution]?
what is to become of your laws,
your ethics, your religion, your
gallows, your Gods and your
Heaven and your Hell
...when it shall be proven that
such a flow of liquids, this variety
of fibers, that degree of pungency in
the blood or in the animal spirits are
sufficient to make a man the object of
your givings and your takings away?
- Conclusion To Section
The search for knowledge of human nature, which had its roots in the
devout natural philosophy and Christian natural law arguments of the
seventeenth century, led in the eighteenth century to La Mettrie's
denial of immateriality, to Diderot's advocacy of sexual liberation and
to Sade's spectre of natural violence.
Clearly, the search for a science of man was not a neutral undertaking.
To adopt the new natural philosophy as the basis for scientific
knowledge of human beings was to form a new image of men and women.
Knowledge and image created a circle of mutual reflections.
This was not the truth that enlightened philosophers wanted or
expected; rather, they desired knowledge of nature as an objective and
authoritative guide to conduct. This was the case even for Sade, though
what he found is that 'egoism is Nature's fundamental commandment'.
How, he argued, 'are you going to persuade me that a virtue in conflict
or in contradiction with the passions is to be found in Nature?' It was
a profound and troubling question for the sciences of man.
>From Pages 227-232
The Norton History of the Human Sciences
by Roger Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Norton-History-Human-Sciences-Science/dp/0393045439
> I do not claim to have an answer. I only claim that the question is a
> legitimate one that all the decent Muslims need to answer. The evil
> ones repeatedly tell us how Islam is the source of their support for
> murder and torture. We need to know from the good ones how Islam has
> made them good.
>
> So far we have only heard from one side.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in
> Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness
> is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is
> www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the
> Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
jkeel...@yahoo.com
Although a practicing Catholic (and moreover, a convert) myself, I am
reminded of a quote (paraphrased; can't remember the author): "without
religion, good men will continue to commit good deeds, while bad men
will continue to commit evil deeds; but for good men to do evil, it
takes RELIGION."
There is some truth to this assertion.
Tiglath
"J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
news:F5oOg.12240$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In my years here I have met morons aplenty...
There was Toby, a harmless moron, good fun, stuck around for about as long
as NoGall.
Then, there was Campbell, a maverick but superb moron; he made me think I
had reached the bottom of the barrel, but surprise!, below the bottom of the
barrel there was another barrel and inside at the bottom I found NoGall...
Sphere
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TXmOg.300$1f1....@eagle.america.net...
> > Hilarious!
> >
>
> every religion is dependent on every other religion and on science being
> flse. such is the hazard of dealing with things that claim to be the only
> truth.
> the actual number of gods is irrelevent. but buddism, hinduism, and
"False", I assume?
The Buddhadhamma doesn't depend upon Science
being flse. In fact, not only has Science never
provided any evidence that Buddha's teachings are
flse, his teachings are falsifiable -- so Science
could in theory provide such evidence. All you
need to do is provide a single example of a
perfect non-composed substance -- one of those
unchanging little billard balls that the word 'atom'
used to mean.
The Buddhadhamma is indifferent to the question
of gods. You can believe in none or many and
it makes no difference to Buddha's teachings.
About the only case which is difficult to swallow
from the viewpoint of Buddha's teachings is the
case of exactly one god; which would be a self
contained, permanent, and perfect being.
> judeo/christian/islam{all facets of the same belief} all reject each other.
...
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
And this just shows how stupid Ant Arrow is.
Where, pray tell, did I take a position advocating religion?
Hint: I took a position denigrating folks on the other extreme, who
act just like their views are 'religion'. It's not the same thing at
all.
:Moron.
Indeed.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
J Antero
alanm...@yahoo.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
>
>
> Posted on 09/05/2006 4:11:24 AM PDT by unionblue83
>
>
>
> I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
> vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
> (you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24
> columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest
> system of values ever devised.
>
> However, this advocacy of religion comes with two caveats.
>
> First, the claimed superiority of Judeo-Christian values in no way
> means that all believing Jews and Christians are good people, let alone
> better than all other people. There have always been and there are
> today morally superior individuals in every religion. And there are
> morally superior individuals among atheists and people of no organized
> religion.
>
> Second, there is no religion that has not made, or at least enabled,
> some of its adherents to be morally worse than they would have been had
> they not adopted that religion.
>
> So our question is not whether there are good or bad people in every
> religion. The question is whether any given religion is likely to make
> one who believes in it a better or worse person than he would have been
> had he not believed in that religion.
>
> attended a Jewish institute I used to direct. When he first arrived at
> the institute, he was a particularly kind and nonjudgmental individual
> -- and completely secular. After his month-long immersion in studying
> and living Judaism, he decided to become a fully practicing Jew. When I
> met him a year later he was actually less kind and was aggressively
> judgmental of the religiosity of fellow Jews, including me and others
> who had brought him to Judaism. In one year he had become in his eyes
> holier than the teachers who brought him to religion in the first
> place.
>
> Now, of course, there are teachings in Judaism that, if honored (such
> as the Prophet Micah's admonition to "walk humbly with your God"),
> would have prevented him from becoming sanctimonious. But the
> religion's emphasis on legal observance enabled him to count the number
> of laws fellow Jews did not observe and judge them accordingly.
>
> One major benefit of Judaism's being law-based is that it can provide
> an individual with a way to regularly ascertain right from wrong, to
> provide ethical rules on a daily basis. It can move him to visit the
> sick when he would rather be at home watching television, to resist
> gossiping, to give more charity than he otherwise would, to show honor
> to parents who may not deserve it, and so much more. But it can also
> lead him to judge fellow Jews by their level of ritual observance, to
> substitute law worship for God worship, and can lead a Jew to retreat
> from almost any social interaction with the non-Jewish world.
>
> Within Christianity, faith in Jesus Christ can lead one to live a life
> of extraordinary loving kindness and self-sacrifice in order to emulate
> Jesus, whom the Christian regards as his Lord and Savior. It can also,
> and has, led Christians to place so much emphasis on proper faith as to
> neglect equal emphasis on proper behavior, to hunt down heretics, to
> judge other people by their faith rather than by their decency (as in
> Europe's wars and killing over theology). It can lead to an almost
> unique support for the Jewish people -- as among American evangelical
> and other conservative Christians -- and it has also led to the most
> prolonged hatred of the Jews for spurning and killing Christ among
> Christians in Europe.
>
> Nearly 2,000 years of Christian domination of Europe did not prevent
> most Europeans from doing nothing to protest, let alone rescue Jews
> from, the Nazi genocide. On the other hand, the relative handful of
> European Jews who were saved were rescued disproportionately by
> religious Christians. I once asked California State University
> Professor Samuel Oliner -- an authority on altruism and on rescuers of
> Jews during the Holocaust, and himself a Jew who was rescued by
> non-Jews -- knowing all he does now, on whose door would he knock if he
> wanted to be saved from the Nazis during the Holocaust -- a doctor, a
> professor, a lawyer or a priest. He answered that there was no question
> that it would have been the priest.
>
> The third monotheistic faith is Islam. There are many millions of
> decent and kind Muslims in the world. But there are also at least a
> hundred million Muslims (i.e., 10 percent) who support killing
> innocents in the name of Allah and Islam. And there are more than that
> who believe in the ideal of using force to spread Islam throughout the
> world.
>
> So the question is this: How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and
> decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of
> Islam?
>
> legitimate one that all the decent Muslims need to answer. The evil
> ones repeatedly tell us how Islam is the source of their support for
> murder and torture. We need to know from the good ones how Islam has
> made them good.
>
> So far we have only heard from one side.
People originated as small tribal units, where everyone knew
everyone else, and just about everyone was related to everyone else.
It was both moral and profitable to kill, rob, or rape total strangers
if you could do so without much risk.
Formal religion and patriotism originated as the glue to hold nation
states together, despite being made up of total strangers. Without
them, violence and anarchy would quickly tear apart any organized
group larger than a small tribe. If you think a world made up of
small tribal groups at a hunter gatherer state of existence is good,
then religion is bad. If you like the idea of large nation states,
agriculture and technology, then religion is good- A. McIntire
Peter Jason
> where everyone knew
> everyone else, and just about everyone was
> related to everyone else.
> It was both moral and profitable to kill,
> rob, or rape total strangers
> if you could do so without much risk.
>
> Formal religion and patriotism originated
> as the glue to hold nation
> states together, despite being made up of
> total strangers. Without
> them, violence and anarchy would quickly
> tear apart any organized
> group larger than a small tribe. If you
> think a world made up of
> small tribal groups at a hunter gatherer
> state of existence is good,
> then religion is bad. If you like the idea
> of large nation states,
> agriculture and technology, then religion
> is good- A. McIntire
>
Well said! My view exactly.
Sphere
Too much of an overgeneralization. If you like the idea of
large nation states then some religions are good. Especially
good are religions which discourage violence against
non-believers; which is a small minority of religions.
(Personally, I'm of mixed minds about large nations-states.
Human cells know when to stop reproducing -- except for
the cancerous ones. Why can't nation-states and businesses
remain a reasonable size too?)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
Tiglath
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:0d1kg21akc3vepdm0...@4ax.com...
> :> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> :> :news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> :> :>
> :> :> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
> :> :>
> :> :> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
> :> :
> :> :It makes them stupider.
> :>
> :> And seems to have the same effect on its rabid opponents.
> :>
> :> --
> :
> :
> :> "The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's
> :> neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious
> :> intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the
> :> people next door are headed for hell."
> :> -- Aleister Crowley
> :
> :NoGall McCall's quote immediately above, is particularly inept.
> :
> :He takes the position of advocating religion, then gives a quote
> criticizing
> :religionists.
>
> And this just shows how stupid Ant Arrow is.
>
Ant Arrow?
Is that supposed to be witty, Gordito?
NoGall insists on playing a game for which he is as under-endowed as for
computer science, chemistry, women, pillow fights, etc., etc.
See NoGall how wrong you are in dismissing those who fail to grasp your
invisible genius?
> Where, pray tell, did I take a position advocating religion?
>
> Hint: I took a position denigrating folks on the other extreme, who
> act just like their views are 'religion'. It's not the same thing at
> all.
>
> :Moron.
>
> Indeed.
Mr. Antero calls NoGall "moron" and NoGall replies "indeed."
That's what people call a consensus.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:mt9og2lk1mqf23f98...@4ax.com...
:> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> :news:0d1kg21akc3vepdm0...@4ax.com...
:> :> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
:> :> :news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
:> :> :>
:> :> :> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
:> :> :
:> :> :It makes them stupider.
:> :>
:> :> And seems to have the same effect on its rabid opponents.
:> :>
:> :> --
:> :
:> :
:> :> "The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's
:> :> neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious
:> :> intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the
:> :> people next door are headed for hell."
:> :> -- Aleister Crowley
:> :
:> :NoGall McCall's quote immediately above, is particularly inept.
:> :
:> :He takes the position of advocating religion, then gives a quote
:> criticizing
:> :religionists.
:>
:> And this just shows how stupid Ant Arrow is.
:>
:
:Ant Arrow?
:
:Is that supposed to be witty, Gordito?
No doubt it's beyond to make the logical leap required, Tiglet.
:> Where, pray tell, did I take a position advocating religion?
:>
:> Hint: I took a position denigrating folks on the other extreme, who
:> act just like their views are 'religion'. It's not the same thing at
:> all.
:>
:> :Moron.
:>
:> Indeed.
:
:Mr. Antero calls NoGall "moron" and NoGall replies "indeed."
:
:That's what people call a consensus.
Leave it to Tiglet of PooPoo Corner to be unable to actually read and
follow the entire sequence.
Tiglet - the other, stupider white meat.
J Antero
NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer argument
with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:
:NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
:
:You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer argument
:with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
Ant Arrow displays all the perspicacity that has made him the sock
puppet he is today.
Tiglet - the other, stupider white meat.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
J Antero
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :
> :NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
> :
> :You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer
> argument
> :with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
> Ant Arrow displays all the perspicacity that has made him the sock
> puppet he is today.
Yes of course. We're all "sock puppets".
As you look up from your perpetually low position, it must seem as though
everyone is not only above you, but against you.
NoGall: NoCompetency; NoHonesty;
Tiglath
Wit that require logical leaps is not witty, Gordito.
Even your jeers and gibes give your opponents ammo to fire at you, dummie.
NoGall just can't make it in this jungle; he may be low in the food chain,
but as prey he is a whole food group.
God in his wisdom gave you the wit so that the Usenet village could have a
great idiot.
> :> Where, pray tell, did I take a position advocating religion?
> :>
> :> Hint: I took a position denigrating folks on the other extreme, who
> :> act just like their views are 'religion'. It's not the same thing at
> :> all.
> :>
> :> :Moron.
> :>
> :> Indeed.
> :
> :Mr. Antero calls NoGall "moron" and NoGall replies "indeed."
> :
> :That's what people call a consensus.
>
> Leave it to Tiglet of PooPoo Corner to be unable to actually read and
> follow the entire sequence.
The sequence goes like this: Mr. Antero calls you a moron and you reply
"Indeed."
It means that NoGall suffers from sudden attacks of honesty.
Tiglath
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :
> :NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
> :
> :You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer
> argument
> :with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
>
> Ant Arrow displays all the perspicacity that has made him the sock
> puppet he is today.
Yet it is you NoGall, a Principal Engineer at Raytheon, allegedly, who asked
me this question.
"[W]hich architecture or actual CPU it is that you think has an 'integer
register'?"
It is confirmation, if it was ever needed, that you are a computer
illiterate moron intent on committing intellectual suicide.
It is you NoGall also, who has accumulated these string of beauties...
Take a look at these ACCURATE quotes:
"[A] computer using a 64-bit CPU and a 64-bit computer are the same thing."
-------
"And you get no gain from it [running a 32-bit application on a 64-bit
computer], either, since in 32-bit mode it [a 64-bit computer] looks and
operates EXACTLY like its 32-bit brethren."
-------
"The [computer] 'market' is all the ones in use."
-------
Report: "More than 50 percent of the top 500 of the Forbes Global 2000
companies or their subsidiaries use AMD64 processor-based systems."
http://www.amdboard.com/amd_041206.html
NoGall: "Note that this just means they have ONE such machine out of however
many thousands they own.
-------
"No one is discriminating by gender in current marriage law [.]. The right
is to marry someone OF THE OPPOSITE GENDER. That's not gender
discrimination. Whatever your gender is, you can marry someone from the
other one."
-------
"There is very little difference between C and C++/Java" [Different
programming eras.]
-------
"A compiler doesn't usually produce an executable file."
-------
Paraphrase: "A binder produces some special code that lets the executable be
hooked into the OS." [This special code remains a mystery]
-------
"In the U.S. it is illegal to call oneself an engineer without being PE
certified." [a false statement]
-------
"It's not 'fire' unless it's EFFECTIVE. [Fire from weapons. Go figure]
-------
"Sound velocity goes up proportional to [air] density." [The opposite is
true]
-------
"Since water is denser than air, so air with water in it would be denser
than air without water in it.[...] This only makes sense." [The opposite is
true]
-------
"At frequencies below around 300Hz sound attenuates faster in dry air.
Above that, it travels further [sic] in dry air." [The opposite is true]
-------
"They're [mortars] carried by heavy weapons teams, not infantry teams."
-------
Paraphrasing: "There are CPUs that can perform between less than 1 and 4
operations in a register in the same clock cycle."
-------
NoGall (a.k.a. Fred J. McCall) April-September 2006
Tiglath
He has also thrown the towel into the ring on the question of what CPUs can
perform between less than 1 and 4 distinct operations in a register in a
clock cycle.
And a whole lot of others.
NoGall is powerless in these questions. All he can offer is bluster, and he
knows that it won't do. He doesn't have the power or the knowledge to put
forward a cogent argument or provide evidence to support any of the
nitwitteries I have listed, those above included.
He doesn't have the power to mock his opponents without suffering further
ridicule because his lameness is inherent to his consciousness.
The only power NoGall has left is Plonk Power.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:1b0qg21nnv314rimg...@4ax.com...
In other words, you don't get it.
<snicker>
:> :> Where, pray tell, did I take a position advocating religion?
:> :>
:> :> Hint: I took a position denigrating folks on the other extreme, who
:> :> act just like their views are 'religion'. It's not the same thing at
:> :> all.
:> :>
:> :> :Moron.
:> :>
:> :> Indeed.
:> :
:> :Mr. Antero calls NoGall "moron" and NoGall replies "indeed."
:> :
:> :That's what people call a consensus.
:>
:> Leave it to Tiglet of PooPoo Corner to be unable to actually read and
:> follow the entire sequence.
:
:The sequence goes like this: Mr. Antero calls you a moron and you reply
:"Indeed."
Not exactly. There's something in front of that, which you of course
are once again too thick to get.
:It means that NoGall suffers from sudden attacks of honesty.
I'm always honest, Tiglet. It's why wankers like you dislike me so
much.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:m8pqg2lo1pkel6i4d...@4ax.com...
:> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
:>
:> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> :
:> :NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
:> :
:> :You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer
:> argument
:> :with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
:> Ant Arrow displays all the perspicacity that has made him the sock
:> puppet he is today.
:
:Yes of course. We're all "sock puppets".
Not all, Ant Arrow. Just you members of the hosiery set.
Frank
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
> Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in
> Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness
> is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is
> www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the
> Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
An Irishwoman returned home after 30 years living in the US, She was
very religious and had been involved as a volunteer in all the
activitites of her local Catholic Church, but was not happy about her
experiences.
She explained: "It wasn't fair. The Germans had the top positions on
the comittees and the Italians were next. We, Irish were at the bottom.
After all, we were all white.
Frank.
Tiglath
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:m8pqg2lo1pkel6i4d...@4ax.com...
> :> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :> :
> :> :NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
> :> :
> :> :You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer
> :> argument
> :> :with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
> :> Ant Arrow displays all the perspicacity that has made him the sock
> :> puppet he is today.
> :
> :Yes of course. We're all "sock puppets".
>
> Not all, Ant Arrow. Just you members of the hosiery set.
>
I don't think NoGall believes in God. It's too big. In his world of
tails and legs, puppets and socks, his small mental vocabulary can't deal
with complex concepts like God.
NoGall worships something much simpler that also works in mysterious ways
(to him): The Microwave.
It stays cold yet the stuff you put in it gets hot... How's that for
mysterious?
NoGall is the first Microwavian.
Nothing wrong with that... if it pops your corn... go for it.
Tiglath
> :> :>
> :> :> And this just shows how stupid Ant Arrow is.
> :> :
> :> :Ant Arrow?
> :> :
> :> :Is that supposed to be witty, Gordito?
> :>
> :> No doubt it's beyond to make the logical leap required, Tiglet.
> :
> :Wit that require logical leaps is not witty, Gordito.
>
> In other words, you don't get it.
>
> <snicker>
Why don't you explain the hilarity in "Ant Arrow," NoGall to me and the Fair
Readers.
>
> :> :> Where, pray tell, did I take a position advocating religion?
> :> :>
> :> :> Hint: I took a position denigrating folks on the other extreme, who
> :> :> act just like their views are 'religion'. It's not the same thing
> at
> :> :> all.
> :> :>
> :> :> :Moron.
> :> :>
> :> :> Indeed.
> :> :
> :> :Mr. Antero calls NoGall "moron" and NoGall replies "indeed."
> :> :
> :> :That's what people call a consensus.
> :>
> :> Leave it to Tiglet of PooPoo Corner to be unable to actually read and
> :> follow the entire sequence.
> :
> :The sequence goes like this: Mr. Antero calls you a moron and you reply
> :"Indeed."
>
> Not exactly. There's something in front of that, which you of course
> are once again too thick to get.
>
> :It means that NoGall suffers from sudden attacks of honesty.
>
> I'm always honest, Tiglet. It's why wankers like you dislike me so
> much.
You sound like your beloved president, NoGall.
Whatever came before the sequence I quoted, it doesn't mean that your answer
to "NoGall is a moron," was not "Indeed." In dialog, answers and that
which they answer to are paired by proximity, NoGall. I know your fuzzy
mind works in mysterious ways, but that is how discourse works. Here is
an example:
"Is NoGall a moron?"
"Indeed, he is."
The "Indeed" part refers to the immediately preceding phrase, same as your
"Indeed" referred to Mr. Antero's calling you a moron.
You now obviously regret calling yourself a moron in public, but how worse
can you look, really?
The archives don't lie, NoGall, no matter how much you buck and dance.
Brian Westley
>"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>news:1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>>
>>
>>
>> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>JUdging by our President, worse.
>> I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
>> vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
>What an idiotic thing to say. Which societies had no religion, than were
>improved by getting one?
He's quoting Dennis Prager, who has long been bigoted against atheists.
Prager is the type of person who thinks monotheism is per se moral.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Hotel Charlie One
news:12gtfr3...@corp.supernews.com:
Actually, years ago Prager was tolerant just like Dr. Laura was
tolerant of gays. Of course, their audience then was the L.A. basin.
Later, in a move no doubt to generate a national audience, they both
became bigots.
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
Moana
Religions define a system of values, dogma and rituals which are
necessarily in opposition with those of other religions.(If not being a
christian would be the same as being a muslim or an buddhist).
Therefore Religion creates a separation between people: on one side:
the believers and the other side: the rest of the world.
When there is a separation there is conflict. Why?
A separation implies the existence of several groups.
Any group will want to improve its condition, status etc.
When this is done, differences are created between people on the basis
of their belonging or not to a group (discrimination.....), which is
sure to bring injustice and inequity....
Religion creates the worst of all the possible separations between
people; it creates a separation in what they believe to be the most
sacred.
Religion is, in my opinion, the main cause for misery, inequity,
violence, war and fear in the world.
chazwin
Here,here!!!!!!!
J Antero
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:m8pqg2lo1pkel6i4d...@4ax.com...
> :> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :> :
> :> :NoGall gets lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory.
> :> :
> :> :You did about as well on this, as you did on the "64 bit" computer
> :> argument
> :> :with Tiglath, which you have apparently surrendered on.
> :> Ant Arrow displays all the perspicacity that has made him the sock
> :> puppet he is today.
> :
> :Yes of course. We're all "sock puppets".
>
> Not all, Ant Arrow. Just you members of the hosiery set.
So says an obese loser who regularly gets put down when he tries to make any
sort of verifiable assertion.
If you think "Tiglath" and "Antero" are the same persons, then why don't we
have a wager, escrowed, and payable upon a mutually agreed standard of
proof? $20,000 from you, against $10,000 each from Tiglath and Antero.
You're a "computer expert", right NoGall? If you actually believe what
you're saying, then this is $20,000 easy money.
> Tiglet - the other, stupider white meat.
Really?
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
Very, very ironic.
Tiglath
>
> If you think "Tiglath" and "Antero" are the same persons, then why don't
> we have a wager, escrowed, and payable upon a mutually agreed standard of
> proof? $20,000 from you, against $10,000 each from Tiglath and Antero.
>
> You're a "computer expert", right NoGall? If you actually believe what
> you're saying, then this is $20,000 easy money.
>
NoGall hates it when people call his bluff.
He has to go into deep silence on the matter or divert with lame invective.
I'll wager my 10K.
But $20K is a bit steep for NoGall. That's about half his net annual
salary. Principle Engineers with Ada backgrounds don't make that much.
Especially a computer engineer who thinks that CPUs don't have integer
registers because "integer registers" and "general purpose registers" are
synonymous.
Especially a computer engineer who insists that "machine" referring to
computers refers to the hardware, and then he uses the term "Linux machine."
Especially a computer engineer who doesn't think 64-bit CPUs are common when
they make up more than half the CPU sales of AMD and Intel.
Especially because if we who only know NoGall through posts and have found
him wanting in all areas he tackles, imagine his bosses who get to review
the products of his incompetence on a regular basis.
J Antero
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:cMEPg.7448$832.1816@trnddc04...
>
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
> news:5FAPg.13199$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> If you think "Tiglath" and "Antero" are the same persons, then why don't
>> we have a wager, escrowed, and payable upon a mutually agreed standard of
>> proof? $20,000 from you, against $10,000 each from Tiglath and Antero.
>>
>> You're a "computer expert", right NoGall? If you actually believe what
>> you're saying, then this is $20,000 easy money.
>>
>
> NoGall hates it when people call his bluff.
>
> He has to go into deep silence on the matter or divert with lame
> invective.
>
> I'll wager my 10K.
Obviously, I'm in for $10,000. It's up to McCall.
A letter agreement can be drawn up which will be notarized in our respective
states, and copies cross distributed. An account can be set up somewhere to
which all parties contribute the amounts wagered. Things should be done
such that any non-performance can be dealt with in a Federal venue.
The ball is in McCall's court.
Tiglath
>
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:cMEPg.7448$832.1816@trnddc04...
>>
>> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
>> news:5FAPg.13199$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> If you think "Tiglath" and "Antero" are the same persons, then why don't
>>> we have a wager, escrowed, and payable upon a mutually agreed standard
>>> of proof? $20,000 from you, against $10,000 each from Tiglath and
>>> Antero.
>>>
>>> You're a "computer expert", right NoGall? If you actually believe what
>>> you're saying, then this is $20,000 easy money.
>>>
>>
>> NoGall hates it when people call his bluff.
>>
>> He has to go into deep silence on the matter or divert with lame
>> invective.
>>
>> I'll wager my 10K.
>
> Obviously, I'm in for $10,000. It's up to McCall.
>
> A letter agreement can be drawn up which will be notarized in our
> respective states, and copies cross distributed. An account can be set up
> somewhere to which all parties contribute the amounts wagered. Things
> should be done such that any non-performance can be dealt with in a
> Federal venue.
>
> The ball is in McCall's court.
>
Another test of NoGall's mettle.
I am ready for a side bet that he will shrink from it.
Shrinkage comes natural to NoGall.
His usual cop out is that he can't be bothered.
Like a piranha confronting a shark.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1158340037.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
>It all depends on the person surely? I tmakes some better it makes
>some worse, you might as we have asked do donuts make people better or
>worse, or perhaps guns. It's too subjective to be off any real use.
How on earth can holding an infantile and provable delusion make
anyone better, in the long run?
Michael Gray
<soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1158264737....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
>Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
:
Statistics prove that it makes them far worse.
Paul Edwards
Because there are undesirable animal traits we have
that make us selfish predators, that need to be overcome,
specifically with "empathy for strangers" and "fight
subjugation".
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> Religion creates the worst of all the possible separations between
> people; it creates a separation in what they believe to be the most
> sacred.
In the west, our modern religion includes to be
anti-religious-bigotry. This has produced
relatively harmonious societies.
> Religion is, in my opinion, the main cause for misery, inequity,
> violence, war and fear in the world.
Not the religion that most westerns subscribe to
today.
BFN. Paul.
Tuco Ramirez
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
>
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
>
>
> Posted on 09/05/2006 4:11:24 AM PDT by unionblue83
>
>
>
> vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
It mostly doesn't have an effect. You are what you are regardless of
what you claim to believe. For true believers, it depends on the
religion.
Same, to a different degree, applies to professed atheists.
Michael Gray
<kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote:
- Refer:
<450f59fd$0$4675$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
The statistics show that religious belief inflames these innate
characteristics that you term as 'undesirable'.
Your assertion does not stand up to analysis, I'm afraid.
Atheists are the single biggest donors of financial weldare aid, and
the least represented (by far), of any prison populations.
Michael Gray
<kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote:
- Refer:
<450f5a80$0$4670$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
Do you mean the one that uses the Old Testament as it's guide to
morality?
Are you joking?
The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
Are you mad?
Paul Edwards
> >> >It all depends on the person surely? I tmakes some better it makes
> >> >some worse, you might as we have asked do donuts make people better or
> >> >worse, or perhaps guns. It's too subjective to be off any real use.
> >>
> >> How on earth can holding an infantile and provable delusion make
> >> anyone better, in the long run?
> >
> >Because there are undesirable animal traits we have
> >that make us selfish predators, that need to be overcome,
> >specifically with "empathy for strangers" and "fight
> >subjugation".
>
> characteristics that you term as 'undesirable'.
> Your assertion does not stand up to analysis, I'm afraid.
> Atheists are the single biggest donors of financial weldare aid, and
> the least represented (by far), of any prison populations.
Atheists are usually secular humanists. This is the
religion/ideology that needs to be promoted.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >> Religion is, in my opinion, the main cause for misery, inequity,
> >> violence, war and fear in the world.
> >
> >Not the religion that most westerns subscribe to
> >today.
>
> morality?
> Are you joking?
Modern Christians don't use the Old Testament as a
guide to morality. They support the humanism of
their liberal democracies.
> The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
> hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
> genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
> Are you mad?
Liberating 27 million people from state-slavery that included
institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do. That is
covered by "fight subjugation" which I gave in another message.
This is exactly the religion that is required. "empathy for
strangers" so that you care about the screams of Iraqi women
as they were being raped by their own government, combined
with "fight subjugation" so that you would actually do something
to free them.
This should replace all existing religions. Or "humanism"
should be expanded to include a directive to fight subjugation
(free slaves).
BFN. Paul.
J Antero
"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
news:450f7e5c$0$4673$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> "Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:rdtug21hugdt58n1u...@4ax.com...
>> >> Religion is, in my opinion, the main cause for misery, inequity,
>> >> violence, war and fear in the world.
>> >
>> >Not the religion that most westerns subscribe to
>> >today.
>>
>> Do you mean the one that uses the Old Testament as it's guide to
>> morality?
>> Are you joking?
>
> Modern Christians don't use the Old Testament as a
> guide to morality. They support the humanism of
> their liberal democracies.
Christians pick and choose passages that support whatever view they happen
to be promoting at the time, from both the OT and the NT. Tariq Aziz is a
Christian, by the way.
>> The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
>> hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
>> genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
>> Are you mad?
>
> Liberating 27 million people from state-slavery that included
> institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do.
On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we should be
attacking. Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good for
their nation, not "do-gooding".
Tiglath
>> institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do.
>
> On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we should be
> attacking. Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good
> for their nation, not "do-gooding".
Exactly.
Some people are so gullible they still buy the altruistic reason to invade
Iraq.
Politicians, not only our own, only care about maintaining and increasing
their power. Exceptions are only when they are starting and young and may
be somewhat idealistic. Soon they learn what Margaret Thatcher reminded us
of, quoting Bismarck, "to govern with principles is like trying to walk in a
forest holding a ten-foot pole between the teeth."
By the time politicians get to the White House, their principles don't go
beyond their rhetoric.
Bush and Co. couldn't care less about the Iraqi people. If the enormous
personal effort W and his cronies have made was out of love for the Iraqi
people, they would not have gone in with Shock and Awe.
I can't believe people can't still be this naive. What are the signs that
Bush cares for the Iraqi people so much?
He doesn't even count Iraqi casualties. He COULD send more troops to
protect Iraqi civilians from the insurgents. He could equally fix their
electricity system. In for a penny in for a pound.
And why doesn't he care for the North Korea people, or the people or Burma?
Or the women being raped in Pakistan, that great ally of ours?
No wonder he got elected twice, people with partisan blindness just can't
see the obvious.
J Antero
Bush was seen walking around holding hands with Saudi prince Bandar? (or
maybe it the ex-Saudi intelligence chief).
Saudi Arabia, in addition to being the source and funder of a lot of this
Moslem extremeism (ex: 9/11 attacks), is a country with a lot of nasty
habits.
Defenseless people from the third world go there for jobs, and wind up in
state of de facto slavery. Maids not uncommonly are raped with little or no
effective recourse.
Besides, if moral questions could justify attack and invasion, some of the
old slave states of the US would have been good candidates up until a few
decades ago. A condition of state sponsored terrorism was long in effect
within some of them toward their black citizens - lynchings, burning to
death, beatings etc. Ironically, this is where a lot of this Protestant
fundamentalist movement comes from.
Tiglath
>
> Besides, if moral questions could justify attack and invasion, some of the
> old slave states of the US would have been good candidates up until a few
> decades ago. A condition of state sponsored terrorism was long in effect
> within some of them toward their black citizens - lynchings, burning to
> death, beatings etc. Ironically, this is where a lot of this Protestant
> fundamentalist movement comes from.
One has to understand, naturally, than when the government finds itself
fresh out of good reasons to invade a country without provocation, they must
say something. "Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do," fills the
void nicely and after the demonization of Saddam added to his real evil, it
makes a nice platitude. It's a reason that relies on a dumb majority,
because for people free from partisan rot and with a modicum of intelligence
it raises more questions than it answers.
Why Iraq? Why now, that we have to fight Al-Qaeda? Why not in the 80s
when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Why not during the Gulf War? Are the
reasons why we didn't march on Bagdad in 1991 valid today? What national
interest does it serve? Can we afford it?
I live in D.C. and I know many government officials. The budgets of
non-defense government department and agencies are being raided like
thievery. We ARE sacrificing for Bush's war in as many intangible ways as
tangible ones.
Paul Edwards
> > Modern Christians don't use the Old Testament as a
> > guide to morality. They support the humanism of
> > their liberal democracies.
>
> Christians pick and choose passages that support whatever view they happen
> to be promoting at the time, from both the OT and the NT. Tariq Aziz is a
> Christian, by the way.
Some Christians do indeed do that. But like I said,
most of them have adopted the humanism of the
liberal democracies they live in.
> >> The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
> >> hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
> >> genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
> >> Are you mad?
> >
> > Liberating 27 million people from state-slavery that included
> > institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do.
>
> On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we should be
> attacking.
Yep. In a geostrategic manner.
> Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good for
> their nation, not "do-gooding".
That's a dogmatic statement. There's no reason why governments
shouldn't put an end to institutionalized rape occurring in the world.
Most people expect them to do something to help the poor. The
oppressed deserve much greater attention.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> Iraq.
No, you're the gullible one that you buy into the concept
that Republicans don't care about anything except
themselves.
> By the time politicians get to the White House, their principles don't go
> beyond their rhetoric.
It's your principles that are lying on the ground.
You didn't care about Iraqi women being raped
by their own government.
> Bush and Co. couldn't care less about the Iraqi people. If the enormous
> personal effort W and his cronies have made was out of love for the Iraqi
> people, they would not have gone in with Shock and Awe.
They didn't go in with Shock and Awe. They went in
with ground forces first.
> I can't believe people can't still be this naive. What are the signs that
> Bush cares for the Iraqi people so much?
He freed them from state-slavery, he used minimum force
to do so, he poured in billions of dollars to reconstruct
the country. What more did you want him to do?
> He doesn't even count Iraqi casualties.
Counting them achieves nothing and means nothing.
> He COULD send more troops to
> protect Iraqi civilians from the insurgents.
Ok, here you have a point. This is where a tradeoff begins.
How much are you willing to spend on the freedom of
others. Bush has to make a balance. He is not infinitely
generous.
> He could equally fix their electricity system.
They have been. Ever since Iraq was liberated they've
been working on it.
> And why doesn't he care for the North Korea people, or the people or Burma?
He does.
> Or the women being raped in Pakistan, that great ally of ours?
He does. Read the human rights reports that the US does on
every country every year. There is an underlying desire to
end human rights abuses all over the world. The US can't
afford to create a multi-front war with half the world though.
It needs to pick targets one at a time in a geostrategic manner.
Get with the program.
> No wonder he got elected twice, people with partisan blindness just can't
> see the obvious.
No, it's you who turned a blind eye to institutionalized rape in
Iraq for partisan reasons. Actually, you didn't so much turn a
blind eye as you actively opposed someone who was going to
end it. Humanity has reached a new low.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> > Besides, if moral questions could justify attack and invasion, some of the
> > old slave states of the US would have been good candidates up until a few
> > decades ago. A condition of state sponsored terrorism was long in effect
> > within some of them toward their black citizens - lynchings, burning to
> > death, beatings etc. Ironically, this is where a lot of this Protestant
> > fundamentalist movement comes from.
>
> One has to understand, naturally, than when the government finds itself
> fresh out of good reasons to invade a country without provocation, they must
> say something.
Now you are showing your tribal loyalties. You viewed
Iraq as a single entity with Saddam as its legitimate
representative, and think that he didn't provoke you.
Whereas I view myself as being in the tribe of anti-subjugators,
a tribe which transcends race/religion/sex/nationality, and
by raping Iraqi women, fellow anti-subjugators, Saddam
provoked me, and I wanted him stopped.
> Why Iraq?
Because it was Iraq's turn. Because it was geostrategic to
take it out.
> Why now, that we have to fight Al-Qaeda?
We need to penetrate the Arab Muslim mindset in order
to find out why Arab Muslims produce terrorists instead
of democracies.
> Why not in the 80s when Saddam gassed the Kurds?
Because fighting the dogma of Islamic fundamentalism
was more important at the time.
> Why not during the Gulf War?
Because we didn't want to spook Russia. We wanted to
give the USSR a chance to collapse completely, by
pretending to do everything via the UN.
> Are the
> reasons why we didn't march on Bagdad in 1991 valid today?
Nope. The USSR is completely and utterly destroyed.
We're now free to liberate the rest of the world. There's
no-one left to stand in our way. Except ourselves.
> What national interest does it serve?
Replacing an enemy with a friend.
> Can we afford it?
Yes. And there's no choice regardless. If you want safety,
you need to take out your enemies. Preferably while they're
still weak. This is the lesson from WWII.
BTW, I'm from Australia, not the US, before anyone
calls me an "American imperialist".
BFN. Paul.
J Antero
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
> news:iVSPg.9613$v%4.4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > Modern Christians don't use the Old Testament as a
>> > guide to morality. They support the humanism of
>> > their liberal democracies.
>>
>> Christians pick and choose passages that support whatever view they
>> happen
>> to be promoting at the time, from both the OT and the NT. Tariq Aziz is a
>> Christian, by the way.
>
> Some Christians do indeed do that. But like I said,
> most of them have adopted the humanism of the
> liberal democracies they live in.
To the extent that is true, then you're tactily saying Christians are
learning from secular people. That's another indication that we don't need
the confusion that comes from the myriad religious dogmas.
>
>> >> The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
>> >> hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
>> >> genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
>> >> Are you mad?
>> >
>> > Liberating 27 million people from state-slavery that included
>> > institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do.
>>
>> On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we should
>> be
>> attacking.
>
> Yep. In a geostrategic manner.
Are we going to do as a good job as we have in Iraq? We'll be bled to death
financially and have the whole world against us.
The medical profession has a concept of "first, do no harm". That implies
actually *knowing* something about the countries and cultures that we would
be arrogantly assigning ourselves the tasks of changing.
>> Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good for
>> their nation, not "do-gooding".
>
> That's a dogmatic statement. There's no reason why governments
> shouldn't put an end to institutionalized rape occurring in the world.
> Most people expect them to do something to help the poor. The
> oppressed deserve much greater attention.
The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to the
effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to improve
the world by the example we set.
By the way, you keep raising the topic of "rape". Could you tell us the
specifics of how much of this was actually going on and who was doing it? Is
it true? Is it something that was particular to that government, or was/is
it something cultural? Or was it largely rumor that was hyped as propaganda.
I remember reading an Iraqi woman's account of fleeing Faluja when the
Marines took it. In the desert, she and her children encountered some Iraqi
government troops who stole from her and were starting to rape her and a
young daughter. She was saved when a US Army patrol showed up and stopped
it.
On that basis, should we be fighting the Bahgdad government, too?
What about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl done by several
US Army troops? The whole family was murdered including a five year old
child. On your logic, would other governments be justified in attacking the
US to put an end to these types of activities?
There's a fair amount of rape in this country, too. Should we be invaded?
Are you familiar with the case of a New York police officer sodomizing a man
with a broom handle, and then being assisted in a coverup attempt? How does
that fit with your concept of "geostrategic" matters?
Paul Edwards
> > Some Christians do indeed do that. But like I said,
> > most of them have adopted the humanism of the
> > liberal democracies they live in.
>
> To the extent that is true, then you're tactily saying Christians are
> learning from secular people.
Yes, that is correct.
> That's another indication that we don't need
> the confusion that comes from the myriad religious dogmas.
Yes, we should be anti-dogma.
> >> On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we should
> >> be attacking.
> >
> > Yep. In a geostrategic manner.
>
> Are we going to do as a good job as we have in Iraq? We'll be bled to death
> financially and have the whole world against us.
The war is affordable. And the whole world is not
against you. No-one is forming a hostile alliance
against you. In fact, you are CARRYING a friendly
alliance with you in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
> The medical profession has a concept of "first, do no harm". That implies
> actually *knowing* something about the countries and cultures that we would
> be arrogantly assigning ourselves the tasks of changing.
You should know enough that it is not part of a rape
victim's culture to want to be raped. Iraq was
essentially "Saddam's culture". Iraqis weren't allowed
a culture of their own. Saddam was the one who was
already doing harm to the Iraqi people. It was time
to end the harm.
> >> Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good for
> >> their nation, not "do-gooding".
> >
> > That's a dogmatic statement. There's no reason why governments
> > shouldn't put an end to institutionalized rape occurring in the world.
> > Most people expect them to do something to help the poor. The
> > oppressed deserve much greater attention.
>
> The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to the
> effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to improve
> the world by the example we set.
That's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. You
shouldn't hero-worship founders who didn't even know
that slavery was wrong. We have a more modern
understanding now, and that includes the universality
of rape being wrong.
> By the way, you keep raising the topic of "rape". Could you tell us the
> specifics of how much of this was actually going on and who was doing it? Is
> it true? Is it something that was particular to that government, or was/is
> it something cultural? Or was it largely rumor that was hyped as propaganda.
Saddam used to order the rape of Iraqi women. They
even had rape rooms. Uday used to abduct women off
the street and rape them. Here's what Bush said about it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2100014/
> I remember reading an Iraqi woman's account of fleeing Faluja when the
> Marines took it. In the desert, she and her children encountered some Iraqi
> government troops who stole from her and were starting to rape her and a
> young daughter. She was saved when a US Army patrol showed up and stopped
> it.
>
> On that basis, should we be fighting the Bahgdad government, too?
No, rape is now illegal in Iraq. That's the "best technology"
we have - to make rape illegal. There will always be
individuals who break the rules of the institution. We don't
have the technology to stop that. What we do have is the
technology to fix the rules of the institutions.
> What about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl done by several
> US Army troops? The whole family was murdered including a five year old
> child. On your logic, would other governments be justified in attacking the
> US to put an end to these types of activities?
Only if this was LEGAL in the US.
> There's a fair amount of rape in this country, too. Should we be invaded?
> Are you familiar with the case of a New York police officer sodomizing a man
> with a broom handle, and then being assisted in a coverup attempt? How does
> that fit with your concept of "geostrategic" matters?
Again, this is ILLEGAL behaviour. In Iraq, it was LEGAL
for Saddam to rape Iraqi women. Do you understand the
difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
BFN. Paul.
J Antero
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
> news:Wb0Qg.14320$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > Some Christians do indeed do that. But like I said,
>> > most of them have adopted the humanism of the
>> > liberal democracies they live in.
>>
>> To the extent that is true, then you're tactily saying Christians are
>> learning from secular people.
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
>> That's another indication that we don't need
>> the confusion that comes from the myriad religious dogmas.
>
> Yes, we should be anti-dogma.
>
>> >> On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we
>> >> should
>> >> be attacking.
>> >
>> > Yep. In a geostrategic manner.
>>
>> Are we going to do as a good job as we have in Iraq? We'll be bled to
>> death
>> financially and have the whole world against us.
>
> The war is affordable.
Then why is the USG running big deficits?
We've spent over $300 billion on a country that's in worse shape than when
we took it over. Life has become terrible for the average Iraqi outside of
Kurdistan.
The insurgency we are fighting is killing ever greater numbers of US troops
and Iraqis. It has become institutionalized and is getting bigger and more
effective.
The Iraqi "governement" governs very little. It is an assemblage of
sectarian groups and their militias - some of them very hostile to the west.
Some, maybe most, of the death squad activity is being carried out by these
militias, in and out of governemnt uniform.
Iraqis forces have little or no logistic train, armor or aviation . If we
left, they would be destroyed if they tried to act as a national armed force
outside of their sectarian/ethnic home areas. This, after 3 1/2 years and
hundreds of billions of dollars.
The war is not "affordable" even in terms of the US military. It's equipment
is deteriorating and the forces are tied up enough that foreign opponents
have been emboldened in their actions because they don't think the US will
be trying anymore invasions.
>And the whole world is not
> against you. No-one is forming a hostile alliance
> against you. In fact, you are CARRYING a friendly
> alliance with you in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
You speak of "you". Are you not a US citizen?
In any case, public opinion surveys in Arab and Islamic lands show
attitudes toward America has become very negative.
We need the good will of these people for decent intelligence.
No allies except the UK are willing to contribute anything meaningful to the
war effort. That's telling.
>> The medical profession has a concept of "first, do no harm". That
>> implies
>> actually *knowing* something about the countries and cultures that we
>> would
>> be arrogantly assigning ourselves the tasks of changing.
>
> You should know enough that it is not part of a rape
> victim's culture to want to be raped.
This is just nonsense.
Iraq was
> essentially "Saddam's culture". Iraqis weren't allowed
> a culture of their own. Saddam was the one who was
> already doing harm to the Iraqi people. It was time
> to end the harm.
>
>> >> Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good for
>> >> their nation, not "do-gooding".
>> >
>> > That's a dogmatic statement. There's no reason why governments
>> > shouldn't put an end to institutionalized rape occurring in the world.
>> > Most people expect them to do something to help the poor. The
>> > oppressed deserve much greater attention.
>>
>> The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to the
>> effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to
>> improve
>> the world by the example we set.
>
> That's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. You
> shouldn't hero-worship founders who didn't even know
> that slavery was wrong. We have a more modern
> understanding now, and that includes the universality
> of rape being wrong.
There's no logical falacy in "staying out other countries' problems, and
trying to improve the world by the example we set".
That's very good logic.
So now you're setting your opinions above the Founders - no sale.
Amd you don't even know that many of them did not like slavery, and
accommodated it for the sake of putting together a country. The issue was
put off for another time.
>
>> By the way, you keep raising the topic of "rape". Could you tell us the
>> specifics of how much of this was actually going on and who was doing it?
>> Is
>> it true? Is it something that was particular to that government, or
>> was/is
>> it something cultural? Or was it largely rumor that was hyped as
>> propaganda.
>
> Saddam used to order the rape of Iraqi women. They
> even had rape rooms. Uday used to abduct women off
> the street and rape them. Here's what Bush said about it:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2100014/
Bush is not a reliable source of information. I agree Saddam was a murderous
tyrant, but I asked you for some facts about this rape question.
This rape thing is more propaganda than any real reason for the invasion.
Saddam was commiting his crimes while Rumsfeld was there shaking his hand
and arranging trade assistance. He was gassing civilian Kurds and noone made
any meaningful protest, or put sanctions on him.
>> I remember reading an Iraqi woman's account of fleeing Faluja when the
>> Marines took it. In the desert, she and her children encountered some
>> Iraqi
>> government troops who stole from her and were starting to rape her and a
>> young daughter. She was saved when a US Army patrol showed up and stopped
>> it.
>>
>> On that basis, should we be fighting the Bahgdad government, too?
>
> No, rape is now illegal in Iraq. That's the "best technology"
> we have - to make rape illegal. There will always be
> individuals who break the rules of the institution. We don't
> have the technology to stop that. What we do have is the
> technology to fix the rules of the institutions.
Please supply some statistics and realiable sources on this Saddam ordered
rape thing that you're always raising.
I'd like to learn more about how much of this systematic rape really went
on. We also heard about babies taken out of incubators during the first Gulf
War, and that turned out to be false. Please supply some verifiable info and
data.
>> What about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl done by
>> several
>> US Army troops? The whole family was murdered including a five year old
>> child. On your logic, would other governments be justified in attacking
>> the
>> US to put an end to these types of activities?
>
> Only if this was LEGAL in the US.
Can you supply reliable info that rape was legal in Iraq under Saddam? I
know his son Uday was reported as a serial rapist, but I believe this was a
case of the law not being enforced.
>> There's a fair amount of rape in this country, too. Should we be invaded?
>> Are you familiar with the case of a New York police officer sodomizing a
>> man
>> with a broom handle, and then being assisted in a coverup attempt? How
>> does
>> that fit with your concept of "geostrategic" matters?
>
> Again, this is ILLEGAL behaviour. In Iraq, it was LEGAL
> for Saddam to rape Iraqi women. Do you understand the
> difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
Do you understand the difference between propaganda and hyped up lies and
the real reasons that nations do things?
I think not.
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:d5YPg.9224$4a3.8328@trnddc07...
>> Some people are so gullible they still buy the altruistic reason to
>> invade
>> Iraq.
>
> No, you're the gullible one that you buy into the concept
> that Republicans don't care about anything except
> themselves.
>
When did I say anything remotely ressembling that of which you accuse me of?
If you REALLY think that we went to Iraq mainly to help the Iraqi people,
they it is futile. As I would be arguing with your will and not with your
reason, and the will cannot be persuaded by argument.
>> By the time politicians get to the White House, their principles don't go
>> beyond their rhetoric.
>
> It's your principles that are lying on the ground.
> You didn't care about Iraqi women being raped
> by their own government.
>
Not true. I care somewhat. As I care somewhat for the children in Brazil
that live in terribly insanitary conditions, or the AIDS victims of Africa,
or the many orphanages in Easter Europe when lovely handicapped orphans
languish in shocking conditions, or...
I just can't carry the world upon my shoulders. I help people within my
reach (yes there are needy people in America) either directly or through
organizations.
What I can't do and won't do is take upon myself the responsibility that
million others are neglecting.
The rape of women in Iraq is first and foremost an Iraqi problem. There are
millions of Iraqi men with a pair of balls just as big as those of men in
America. It is THEIR responsibility to take care of their women, before
anyone lays that responsibility on my door, or yours.
Your view of the world is rather flat, when in reality is hierarchichal.
It's is good to help people, but people must tend to their own business
first. Iraqis had 25 years to find a way to get rid of Saddam, and they
didn't. Not even now that we got rid of Saddam for them can they seize the
opportunity and make a decent life for themselves.
You should learn what Bush should have known, that Iraq was a preassure
cooker of a country, artificially created by Europeans without regard to
ethnic divides, on purpose. Removing Saddam busted the O-ring and it came
undone. Trying to put back together that which doesn't belong together is
a bad investment and it has created a hell worse that a few rapes here and
there were. The hundreds of people Saddam's sons and their henchmen had
forcible sex with pale next to the thousands killed and maimed by
insurgents. Market goers that get blown up are the lucky ones, shop keepers
and businessmen tortured with power drills before being shot aren't so
lucky.
So to your "You don't care about women being raped" I say, "You don't care
shoppers and businessmen being tortured to death," because not only the
policies you support caused it, but those in charge let it happen as they
stay safe in the Green Zone.
>> Bush and Co. couldn't care less about the Iraqi people. If the enormous
>> personal effort W and his cronies have made was out of love for the Iraqi
>> people, they would not have gone in with Shock and Awe.
>
> They didn't go in with Shock and Awe. They went in
> with ground forces first.
>
History revisionism has the least chance of success when history is as
recent as March 20, 2003.
The Iraq Invasion started with Operation Shock and Awe to implementing by
bombardment the doctrine of rapid dominance. The only ground troops
operating before the bombardment were the Special Forces commandos that were
to guide air attacks.
This discussion will soon lose interest if you are not familiar at least
with the salient facts necessary to carry it with a modicum of competence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/20/iraq/main544837.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
>> I can't believe people can't still be this naive. What are the signs
>> that
>> Bush cares for the Iraqi people so much?
>
> He freed them from state-slavery, he used minimum force
> to do so, he poured in billions of dollars to reconstruct
> the country. What more did you want him to do?
>
Isn't it obvious?
To actually give them something better than Saddam's Iraq.
>> He doesn't even count Iraqi casualties.
>
> Counting them achieves nothing and means nothing.
>
Wrong. It tells you at least if you are killing too many of the people you
are supposed to be helping.
Right above you say that Bush used "minimal force." How can you possibly
know that if you don't count Iraqi casualties? Try to make sense.
>> He COULD send more troops to
>> protect Iraqi civilians from the insurgents.
>
> Ok, here you have a point. This is where a tradeoff begins.
Wrong. The tradeoff begins much, much earlier. It begins by listening to
experts that are telling you that you will mess up. It begins by realizing
that there WAS a good reason why we didn't march on Bagdad during the Gulf
War and that that reason was still valid in 2003. It begins by
acknowledging that regrettable as it is that women get raped, it WAS the
LESSER evil. A politician's job is nearly always to choose between evils,
and to have the wisdom to choose the lesser one.
> How much are you willing to spend on the freedom of
> others.
Excellent question. I'd say let us worry about the snow on our doorstep
before shovelling the snow on the neighbor's step. When you have Katrina
survivors wanting badly still, a real problem controlling our borders that
has brought 12 million illegal immigrants, among which 1 million are violent
criminals (that is, 20 army divisions of criminals roaming our country) then
I'd say that we should be spending only moderately helping others,
especially those who are reluctant to help themselves.
It means that if you want to free the Iraqi people, or any other people, you
help finance a revolution. Unfortunately, few Iraqis had the balls for it.
Iraqi boys should die for Iraqi freedom before our boys die.
> Bush has to make a balance.
Balance and Iraq sont les mots qui ne vont pas tre bien ensemble.
> He is not infinitely
> generous.
Some relief.
Tiglath
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
> news:iVSPg.9613$v%4.4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> their nation, not "do-gooding".
>
> That's a dogmatic statement. There's no reason why governments
> shouldn't put an end to institutionalized rape occurring in the world.
There can BE very good reason not to do so, as in Iraq. Your simplistic
statement implies that ending rape is a matter of just waving a wand. But
it is clearly not in the case of Iraq. Saddam's Iraq was better than the
Iraq we have created. The HUGE investment in blood and treasure for the
remedy to end rape is proving worse than the disease. Therefore there are
very good reasons why governments should not end rape when it entails or
risks a bigger evil.
> Most people expect them to do something to help the poor. The
> oppressed deserve much greater attention.
Is you pocket as deep as your mind is high (as in high-minded, not stoned)?
There were people in this world who needed help far more desperately than
the Iraqi people, and Saddam was by no means the worse dictator. Can we
afford to right all the wrongs in the world, when Iraq alone is depleting
our treasury?
Although there is an element of altruism in our foreign aid, it is mainly a
political tool to exert international influence. So even when we help
people our country's interests are kept clearly in mind. What interests
does the Iraq war serve? Surely not the interests of the country. Saddam
surely didn't attack us. They surely didn't have an Al-Qaida connection;
they have now. If I was Iraqi I would say to America to stuff their help.
Removing Saddam has unleashed hell and fury that was being nicely contained,
Saddam's atrocities notwithstanding. It was a grave miscalculation about
which W was forewarned by his father's friends. Our only luck is that
Saddam is still alive and available to straighten things out in Iraq again,
since we obviously cannot.
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:YGZPg.12360$4a3.11162@trnddc07...
>> > Besides, if moral questions could justify attack and invasion, some of
>> > the
>> > old slave states of the US would have been good candidates up until a
>> > few
>> > decades ago. A condition of state sponsored terrorism was long in
>> > effect
>> > within some of them toward their black citizens - lynchings, burning to
>> > death, beatings etc. Ironically, this is where a lot of this Protestant
>> > fundamentalist movement comes from.
>>
>> One has to understand, naturally, than when the government finds itself
>> fresh out of good reasons to invade a country without provocation, they
>> must
>> say something.
>
> Now you are showing your tribal loyalties.
I have no tribe, I'm a city guy.
> You viewed
> Iraq as a single entity with Saddam as its legitimate
> representative, and think that he didn't provoke you.
> Whereas I view myself as being in the tribe of anti-subjugators,
> a tribe which transcends race/religion/sex/nationality, and
> by raping Iraqi women, fellow anti-subjugators, Saddam
> provoked me, and I wanted him stopped.
>
You are dangerous and ineffective. What are you doing posting in Usenet
with the amount of subjugators loose in the world constantly provoking you?
Are you aware that in Pakistan, that stout friend of ours, the state turns a
blind eye to rape? A man sister can be gang-raped for an offense her
brother committed. A few cases gain international attention, a few shake
their head, and back to business as usual. Isn't that provoking you? When
are you marching against Mussarraf ?
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2002/000081.html
>> Why Iraq?
>
> Because it was Iraq's turn.
Who keeps the list of whose turn it is and when?
> Because it was geostrategic to take it out.
What does that mean?
I thought it was altruism? Make up your mind.
>
>> Why now, that we have to fight Al-Qaeda?
>
> We need to penetrate the Arab Muslim mindset in order
> to find out why Arab Muslims produce terrorists instead
> of democracies.
>
And we do that best while huddling in the Green Zone as Sunnis and Shiites
murder each other on the other side of the wall, right?
Dozens of college professors have papers on why Islam needs to be reformed.
I suggest you check Salman Rushdie on that issue. You'll find out that
there was no need to go to war to penetrate no mindset, the world
intellectuals have had those answers for years... Check before assembling
the task force next time.
>
> Because we didn't want to spook Russia. We wanted to
> give the USSR a chance to collapse completely, by
> pretending to do everything via the UN.
>
Hmmm. That one escaped me.
>> Are the
>> reasons why we didn't march on Bagdad in 1991 valid today?
>
> Nope. The USSR is completely and utterly destroyed.
I was in Moscow recently and it looked fine to me and I had a great time.
I didn't know ruins could be so beautiful.
> We're now free to liberate the rest of the world. There's
> no-one left to stand in our way. Except ourselves.
You are dangerous and ineffective. The world is worse off than before you
started your Quixotic Quest.
The status quo ante was far better.
>> What national interest does it serve?
>
> Replacing an enemy with a friend.
>
How many Americans did Saddam kill?
How many Americans has the "friend" we've replace him with killed?
Do the math.
>> Can we afford it?
>
> Yes. And there's no choice regardless. If you want safety,
> you need to take out your enemies.
Enemies that do not attack us or pose any threat like Saddam Hussein?
Take out enemies like Al-Qaeda, which couldn't set a foot in Iraq because
Saddam would amputate it, and now is opening branches all over Mesopotamia?
Take out enemies like North Korea, which HAS WMD that can reach us,
allegedly?
Bushes DEEDS don't seem to follow the program you outline.
> Preferably while they're
> still weak. This is the lesson from WWII.
>
I see. That's why we prefer to leave North Koria be now that is relatively
weak, right?
Again there seems to be an deep chasm between your political agenda and
reality.
> BTW, I'm from Australia, not the US, before anyone
> calls me an "American imperialist".
Crikey, you could have fooled me...
Paul Edwards
> >> One has to understand, naturally, than when the government finds itself
> >> fresh out of good reasons to invade a country without provocation, they
> >> must
> >> say something.
> >
> > Now you are showing your tribal loyalties.
>
> I have no tribe, I'm a city guy.
You have a tribe, you just don't call it by that name.
You call it "nationality" instead.
> > You viewed
> > Iraq as a single entity with Saddam as its legitimate
> > representative, and think that he didn't provoke you.
> > Whereas I view myself as being in the tribe of anti-subjugators,
> > a tribe which transcends race/religion/sex/nationality, and
> > by raping Iraqi women, fellow anti-subjugators, Saddam
> > provoked me, and I wanted him stopped.
>
> You are dangerous and ineffective. What are you doing posting in Usenet
> with the amount of subjugators loose in the world constantly provoking you?
I am doing my best to get the Republicans re-elected so
that we can continue to liberate countries, putting an end
to subjugation.
> Are you aware that in Pakistan, that stout friend of ours, the state turns a
> blind eye to rape? A man sister can be gang-raped for an offense her
> brother committed. A few cases gain international attention, a few shake
> their head, and back to business as usual. Isn't that provoking you? When
> are you marching against Mussarraf ?
Yes, Pakistan needs to be toppled in due course. But first
we need to start with the enemies. That is the geostrategic
thing to do, before we start on nominal allies.
> >> Why Iraq?
> >
> > Because it was Iraq's turn.
>
> Who keeps the list of whose turn it is and when?
The world is constantly re-evaluated for the answer to
this question.
> > Because it was geostrategic to take it out.
>
> What does that mean?
>
> I thought it was altruism? Make up your mind.
It was both. We altruistically want to protect human rights
across the globe. But when invading countries, you get
best bang per buck by acting in a geostrategic manner,
taking on the enemies first.
> >> Why now, that we have to fight Al-Qaeda?
> >
> > We need to penetrate the Arab Muslim mindset in order
> > to find out why Arab Muslims produce terrorists instead
> > of democracies.
>
> And we do that best while huddling in the Green Zone as Sunnis and Shiites
> murder each other on the other side of the wall, right?
No, we do it by giving them an environment of freedom
and finding out what they REALLY want.
> Dozens of college professors have papers on why Islam needs to be reformed.
> I suggest you check Salman Rushdie on that issue. You'll find out that
> there was no need to go to war to penetrate no mindset, the world
> intellectuals have had those answers for years... Check before assembling
> the task force next time.
No, no-one knew what was inside the minds of the Iraqis
living under a dictatorship. The only way to find out was
to give them an environment of freedom. It was only then
that we could determine how many of them were allies and
how many of them were still enemies, and to try to explain
the difference. It turned out that half of them felt liberated
and half of them felt humiliated. Without the invasion, we
would never have known this.
And the reason for the difference? Tribal loyalty. The ones
who felt liberated have a concept of being in a tribe of
anti-subjugators, while the humiliated ones only see a
foreign tribe (white Christian Americans). We thus now
know the solution to the problem - to get people to join
our tribe, the tribe of anti-subjugators, which transcends
race/religion/sex/nationality.
This is a new concept. The answer was not previously
there.
> >> Are the
> >> reasons why we didn't march on Bagdad in 1991 valid today?
> >
> > Nope. The USSR is completely and utterly destroyed.
>
> I was in Moscow recently and it looked fine to me and I had a great time.
> I didn't know ruins could be so beautiful.
You were in Moscow, Russia, not Moscow, USSR.
> > We're now free to liberate the rest of the world. There's
> > no-one left to stand in our way. Except ourselves.
>
> You are dangerous and ineffective. The world is worse off than before you
> started your Quixotic Quest.
>
> The status quo ante was far better.
No, 27 million people living in state-slavery with institutionalized
rape was not better, unless you're a sociopath. Do you vote
Democrat?
> >> What national interest does it serve?
> >
> > Replacing an enemy with a friend.
>
> How many Americans did Saddam kill?
Not many.
> How many Americans has the "friend" we've replace him with killed?
None.
> Do the math.
Do it yourself.
> >> Can we afford it?
> >
> > Yes. And there's no choice regardless. If you want safety,
> > you need to take out your enemies.
>
> Enemies that do not attack us or pose any threat like Saddam Hussein?
You don't know what threat he posed. What you did know
was that he hated you. You can't allow people that hate you
and are in charge of state resources to be left alone. You're
asking for trouble.
> Take out enemies like Al-Qaeda, which couldn't set a foot in Iraq because
> Saddam would amputate it, and now is opening branches all over Mesopotamia?
It is good that the terrorists are lining up to be shot by US
forces instead of hitting US civilians. That is an added
bonus.
> Take out enemies like North Korea, which HAS WMD that can reach us,
> allegedly?
Each threat needs to be independently analyzed. North
Korea is hopefully close to collapse from within, and
doesn't require military intervention. Iraq was the
golden opportunity.
> Bushes DEEDS don't seem to follow the program you outline.
They do.
> > Preferably while they're
> > still weak. This is the lesson from WWII.
>
> I see. That's why we prefer to leave North Koria be now that is relatively
> weak, right?
North Korea has the ability to annihilate Seoul. This
needs to be taken into consideration.
BFN. Paul.
Tiglath
>
> The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to the
> effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to
> improve the world by the example we set.
>
Great wisdom.
That's right. Make them envy us, and copy us, and let them DO it. The
blueprint is free.
That has happened to a very large degree culturally, especially through
Hollywood.
Lots and lots of people in the world wanted to be hip like the hip Americans
in the movies (a gross misrepresentation of the actual population, but who
cares)
Our politics have undone the love our culture have nurture for decades.
People hate us now. Many thank god, non-Muslims especially, can tell
between the American people and the American government, and hope some day
soon they will act in better accord.
> By the way, you keep raising the topic of "rape". Could you tell us the
> specifics of how much of this was actually going on and who was doing it?
> Is it true? Is it something that was particular to that government, or
> was/is it something cultural? Or was it largely rumor that was hyped as
> propaganda.
>
Rape was sensationalized. Even with a woody 24x7 Saddam's monster sons and
their henchment could not violate enough women for it to be a calamity
comparable to the carnage that has been going since we "liberated" the
place.
Tiglath
>
>> >> On that criteria, there are countries all over the world that we
>> >> should
>> >> be attacking.
>> >
>> > Yep. In a geostrategic manner.
>>
>> Are we going to do as a good job as we have in Iraq? We'll be bled to
>> death
>> financially and have the whole world against us.
>
> The war is affordable.
How can you know that? I live in D.C. and know first hand what the cost of
the war is doing to other branches of government.
Can you say Katrina?
>>
>> The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to the
>> effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to
>> improve
>> the world by the example we set.
>
> That's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.
Your Logic seems to be on a par with your military history.
An appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority is improper.
How old are you? Maybe you need to live a bit longer and learn a few
things before you can carry a conversation like this without injuring
yourself.
To say that George Washington is not a proper authority in a piece of
political advice whose wisdom has stood the test of time is like crying,
"Logical Fallacy; Appeal to Authority!" when your girlfriend tells you that
her doctor told her she has the clap.
Don't have to take my word for it, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
> You
> shouldn't hero-worship founders who didn't even know
> that slavery was wrong. We have a more modern
> understanding now, and that includes the universality
> of rape being wrong.
That's a strawman. George Washington never said that rape is not wrong.
And cut your modern man air of superiority. The century just past was the
bloodiest in history, far more than when people condoned slavery.
A couple of words for morally superior men like you to steal, beg, or borrow
some humility: Rwanda, Sudan.
Paul Edwards
> >> Some people are so gullible they still buy the altruistic reason to
> >> invade Iraq.
> >
> > No, you're the gullible one that you buy into the concept
> > that Republicans don't care about anything except
> > themselves.
>
> When did I say anything remotely ressembling that of which you accuse me of?
>
> If you REALLY think that we went to Iraq mainly to help the Iraqi people,
> they it is futile. As I would be arguing with your will and not with your
> reason, and the will cannot be persuaded by argument.
There wasn't just one reason for invading Iraq. There
were multiple reasons. One of the reasons was to help
the Iraqi people.
> > It's your principles that are lying on the ground.
> > You didn't care about Iraqi women being raped
> > by their own government.
>
> The rape of women in Iraq is first and foremost an Iraqi problem. There are
> millions of Iraqi men with a pair of balls just as big as those of men in
> America. It is THEIR responsibility to take care of their women, before
> anyone lays that responsibility on my door, or yours.
They tried that. In 1991. 100,000 people died without
achieving anything. For your amusement. Count them.
It is technically impossible to overthrow a
properly-organized military. They needed help. It is
the responsibility of nations who are already free to
help those who are living under sadistic dictators.
You may have noticed that there are long queues of
VOLUNTEERS to join the Iraqi military and police,
now that they can make a difference. This is the
compassionate thing to do.
> Your view of the world is rather flat, when in reality is hierarchichal.
> It's is good to help people, but people must tend to their own business
> first. Iraqis had 25 years to find a way to get rid of Saddam, and they
> didn't.
Nor could you, if you were living there.
> Not even now that we got rid of Saddam for them can they seize the
> opportunity and make a decent life for themselves.
They are seizing the opportunity. There is an UNLIMITED
supply of volunteers to take up the fight. They're even dying
while they're queuing up to join. Getting killed on the job
before they've even got the job!
> You should learn what Bush should have known, that Iraq was a preassure
> cooker of a country, artificially created by Europeans without regard to
> ethnic divides, on purpose. Removing Saddam busted the O-ring and it came
> undone. Trying to put back together that which doesn't belong together is
> a bad investment and it has created a hell worse that a few rapes here and
> there were. The hundreds of people Saddam's sons and their henchmen had
> forcible sex with pale next to the thousands killed and maimed by
> insurgents. Market goers that get blown up are the lucky ones, shop keepers
> and businessmen tortured with power drills before being shot aren't so
> lucky.
The rapes were a symptom of a larger problem - state-slavery.
Basically slavery has not been abolished in this world. And
yes, there are attacks from terrorists. Most Iraqis do not want
to give in to terrorist demands. Nor would you. They want to
be free. That's why despite terrorist threats they queued up to
vote in large numbers. A higher turnout than in the US.
> So to your "You don't care about women being raped" I say, "You don't care
> shoppers and businessmen being tortured to death," because not only the
> policies you support caused it, but those in charge let it happen as they
> stay safe in the Green Zone.
I do care about people being tortured to death, which is why
I have made it illegal, and I have provided a security force
to enforce those laws, and jails and courts to deal with those
who violate those laws. As it should be. Under Saddam, the
rape was LEGAL. Do you understand the difference between
LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
> >> Bush and Co. couldn't care less about the Iraqi people. If the enormous
> >> personal effort W and his cronies have made was out of love for the Iraqi
> >> people, they would not have gone in with Shock and Awe.
> >
> > They didn't go in with Shock and Awe. They went in
> > with ground forces first.
>
> History revisionism has the least chance of success when history is as
> recent as March 20, 2003.
>
> The Iraq Invasion started with Operation Shock and Awe to implementing by
> bombardment the doctrine of rapid dominance. The only ground troops
> operating before the bombardment were the Special Forces commandos that were
> to guide air attacks.
>
> This discussion will soon lose interest if you are not familiar at least
> with the salient facts necessary to carry it with a modicum of competence.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/20/iraq/main544837.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
Did you actually bother to read the link you posted? It
specifically says it wasn't "Shock and Awe", it was just
targets of opportunity. Basically it was a decapitation
strike. After the decapitation strike, they sent in ground
troops. They never actually did "Shock and Awe", they
just threatened it.
> >> I can't believe people can't still be this naive. What are the signs
> >> that Bush cares for the Iraqi people so much?
> >
> > He freed them from state-slavery, he used minimum force
> > to do so, he poured in billions of dollars to reconstruct
> > the country. What more did you want him to do?
>
> Isn't it obvious?
>
> To actually give them something better than Saddam's Iraq.
They have something better than Saddam's Iraq already. They
have a democracy. They have human rights, protected by law.
The country is being reconstructed, instead of having Saddam
squander Iraq's wealth on palaces. And it's on a path of
constant improvement, instead of the stagnation under Saddam.
> >> He doesn't even count Iraqi casualties.
> >
> > Counting them achieves nothing and means nothing.
>
> Wrong. It tells you at least if you are killing too many of the people you
> are supposed to be helping.
What is the figure for "too many"? What price would
you be willing to pay to live in freedom? In WWII
the Japanese were on their way to Australia, bringing
with them the concept of "comfort women". In my
understanding of Australian psyche, we would have
sacrificed 90% of our population before handing over
a single woman. In the Alamo they sacrificed 100%
rather than live in slavery.
> Right above you say that Bush used "minimal force." How can you possibly
> know that if you don't count Iraqi casualties? Try to make sense.
Counting casualties does not tell you whether minimal
force was used or not. Counting casualties achieves
nothing at all.
> >> He COULD send more troops to
> >> protect Iraqi civilians from the insurgents.
> >
> > Ok, here you have a point. This is where a tradeoff begins.
>
> Wrong. The tradeoff begins much, much earlier. It begins by listening to
> experts that are telling you that you will mess up. It begins by realizing
It isn't messed up. We have freed 27 million people
from state-slavery.
> that there WAS a good reason why we didn't march on Bagdad during the Gulf
> War and that that reason was still valid in 2003. It begins by
> acknowledging that regrettable as it is that women get raped, it WAS the
> LESSER evil. A politician's job is nearly always to choose between evils,
> and to have the wisdom to choose the lesser one.
It was NOT the lesser evil. 27 million people living in
slavery is NOT better than paying a small price for freedom.
Like I said, at the Alamo, 100%. In Iraq they haven't even
had to pay 1% for their freedom.
> > How much are you willing to spend on the freedom of
> > others.
>
> Excellent question. I'd say let us worry about the snow on our doorstep
> before shovelling the snow on the neighbor's step. When you have Katrina
> survivors wanting badly still, a real problem controlling our borders that
> has brought 12 million illegal immigrants, among which 1 million are violent
> criminals (that is, 20 army divisions of criminals roaming our country) then
> I'd say that we should be spending only moderately helping others,
> especially those who are reluctant to help themselves.
They're not reluctant to help themselves. They needed
Saddam's security forces destroyed so that they could
help themselves. I'd rather you stopped giving aid to
foreign countries and concentrated all your foreign
generosity on wars of liberation. That produces the
best bang per buck. It allows the state resources to be
spent on improving the country instead of improving a
dictator's palaces.
> It means that if you want to free the Iraqi people, or any other people, you
> help finance a revolution. Unfortunately, few Iraqis had the balls for it.
> Iraqi boys should die for Iraqi freedom before our boys die.
The problem here is that you have been raised on a myth
of a glorious revolution in America. It was French
heavy-lifting that won that war, not a glorious revolution.
Learn to say "French military victory". The Iraqis have
the balls to fight for their freedom, and are trying to take
over security responsibility from the Americans. And
"your boys" are happy to assist them. Don't go making
decisions on their behalf. If you want to know what they
think, listen to them:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/06/why-we-fight.html
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >> That's another indication that we don't need
> >> the confusion that comes from the myriad religious dogmas.
> >
> > Yes, we should be anti-dogma.
I should clarify that. We need a religion that
says "I am AGAINST dogma", as one of its tenets,
along with "fight subjugation". I have constructed
such a religion already.
> > The war is affordable.
>
> Then why is the USG running big deficits?
It is very cheap compared to past wars, as a percentage
of GDP.
> We've spent over $300 billion on a country that's in worse shape than when
> we took it over. Life has become terrible for the average Iraqi outside of
> Kurdistan.
No, most of the country is quiet. It's just the minority
Sunni areas where there is still an insurgency. I didn't
say the war was cost-free. There is a price to be paid
for freedom. It's a once-off cost and then you have a
new member of the free world.
> The insurgency we are fighting is killing ever greater numbers of US troops
> and Iraqis. It has become institutionalized and is getting bigger and more
> effective.
The insurgency is not institutionalized! The institutions
of Iraq are fighting the insurgency!
> The Iraqi "governement" governs very little. It is an assemblage of
> sectarian groups and their militias - some of them very hostile to the west.
The Iraqi government governs the vast bulk of the country.
All sectarian groups are represented. The vast bulk of the
government is not hostile to the west, and wants the US
forces to remain. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight
better than Saddam's cruel dictatorship.
> Some, maybe most, of the death squad activity is being carried out by these
> militias, in and out of governemnt uniform.
I agree there is some. This problem will be solved in
time. Iraq is in a constant state of improvement.
> Iraqis forces have little or no logistic train, armor or aviation . If we
> left, they would be destroyed if they tried to act as a national armed force
> outside of their sectarian/ethnic home areas. This, after 3 1/2 years and
> hundreds of billions of dollars.
I disagree that they would be destroyed. The government
has far more people and weapons than the insurgents do.
It will change the nature of the battle though, which is why
it is better if the US stays longer.
> The war is not "affordable" even in terms of the US military. It's equipment
> is deteriorating and the forces are tied up enough that foreign opponents
> have been emboldened in their actions because they don't think the US will
> be trying anymore invasions.
It is good to see US's enemies draw the same incorrect
conclusions you do and sticking their necks out. It makes
it so much easier to mount a case against them, which
means we get to liberate more people from state-slavery.
The Libyans threw in the towel though. So they're off
the list of countries to liberate.
> >And the whole world is not
> > against you. No-one is forming a hostile alliance
> > against you. In fact, you are CARRYING a friendly
> > alliance with you in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> You speak of "you". Are you not a US citizen?
No, I'm Australian, part of the free world and part of the
coalition of the willing. And an anti-subjugator, along
with half of my country and half of yours.
> In any case, public opinion surveys in Arab and Islamic lands show
> attitudes toward America has become very negative.
> We need the good will of these people for decent intelligence.
I agree we need to fix the problems with the illogical
anti-Americanism in Arab and Islamic countries. This
is the source of terrorism. But terrorists are weak. It
is governments who have the ability to do real damage.
We need to take care of the govenments first, then work
on the people. The basic problem with the people is
that Arabs are racist and Muslims are religious bigots.
We need to reeducate them to be anti-racist and
anti-religious-bigot, or at least non-racist and
non-religious-bigot.
> No allies except the UK are willing to contribute anything meaningful to the
> war effort. That's telling.
Unfortunately the only countries geared up to project
meaningful force are the US, UK and France. Australia
can project some too. What's telling is that there is no-one
to stand in America's way, even if they wanted to. There
is nothing preventing a worldwide blitzkrieg. It is the
final roll of the dice. Once again, America is the world's
only hope. It is unfortunate that most Europeans and half
of America can't see what a benevolent power the US is.
> There's no logical falacy in "staying out other countries' problems, and
> trying to improve the world by the example we set".
>
> That's very good logic.
No it isn't. That is isolationism, and it is a failed strategy.
> So now you're setting your opinions above the Founders - no sale.
I know more than your slave-owning founders. You are
stuck in the past, hero-worshipping your founders instead
of looking to a future where women are not raped by
their own government.
> Bush is not a reliable source of information. I agree Saddam was a murderous
> tyrant, but I asked you for some facts about this rape question.
If Bush were lying about the rape rooms, the press would
have had a field day. Regardless, you can replace every
instance of "rape" with "murder" since you acknowledge
he was a murderous tyrant. Murder is worse than rape
anyway.
> This rape thing is more propaganda than any real reason for the invasion.
Forget Bush, it should have been *YOUR* real reason
for the invasion. Didn't your mother teach you to protect
women? What is your religion? You need a better
religion that teaches you to fight subjugation and fight
non-humanist behaviour.
> Saddam was commiting his crimes while Rumsfeld was there shaking his hand
> and arranging trade assistance. He was gassing civilian Kurds and noone made
> any meaningful protest, or put sanctions on him.
Yes, defeating the twin dogmas of Islam and communism
were of higher priority than supporting human rights of
others. Survival of the free world comes first. That is the
rational stance to take.
> > No, rape is now illegal in Iraq. That's the "best technology"
> > we have - to make rape illegal. There will always be
> > individuals who break the rules of the institution. We don't
> > have the technology to stop that. What we do have is the
> > technology to fix the rules of the institutions.
>
> Please supply some statistics and realiable sources on this Saddam ordered
> rape thing that you're always raising.
>
> I'd like to learn more about how much of this systematic rape really went
> on. We also heard about babies taken out of incubators during the first Gulf
> War, and that turned out to be false. Please supply some verifiable info and
> data.
Replace "rape" with "torture" and I'll show you the video:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/r9der1.ram
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/p5osax8.ram
The argument remains the same regardless of whether it is
rape or torture we are talking about.
> >> What about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl done by
> >> several
> >> US Army troops? The whole family was murdered including a five year old
> >> child. On your logic, would other governments be justified in attacking
> >> the
> >> US to put an end to these types of activities?
> >
> > Only if this was LEGAL in the US.
>
> Can you supply reliable info that rape was legal in Iraq under Saddam? I
> know his son Uday was reported as a serial rapist, but I believe this was a
> case of the law not being enforced.
Now you're quibbling about "law". I'm talking about the REAL
laws, the ones that the police were enforcing. And the REAL
laws were that Uday could rape anyone he felt like.
> > Again, this is ILLEGAL behaviour. In Iraq, it was LEGAL
> > for Saddam to rape Iraqi women. Do you understand the
> > difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
>
> Do you understand the difference between propaganda and hyped up lies and
> the real reasons that nations do things?
>
> I think not.
It's not propaganda and lies. And there were multiple reasons
for Iraq to be invaded. But YOU should have done it to protect
the Iraqi people's human rights. Especially the poor women.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >> Governments are supposed to operate on a basis of what's good for
> >> their nation, not "do-gooding".
> >
> > That's a dogmatic statement. There's no reason why governments
> > shouldn't put an end to institutionalized rape occurring in the world.
>
> There can BE very good reason not to do so, as in Iraq. Your simplistic
> statement implies that ending rape is a matter of just waving a wand. But
Ending INSTITUTIONALIZED rape was as easy as toppling
Saddam's fielded forces. It took 3 weeks and cost 100 allied
lives. The moment Saddam's statue fell, institutionalized rape
ended.
> it is clearly not in the case of Iraq. Saddam's Iraq was better than the
> Iraq we have created.
No it isn't. Most Iraqis think the war was worth it, and
most Iraqis braved terrorist threats to turn out to vote.
Would YOU rather live in slavery that included
institutionalized rape rather than stand up to terrorist
threats? If so, you're not the people of the Alamo.
> The HUGE investment in blood and treasure for the
> remedy to end rape is proving worse than the disease. Therefore there are
> very good reasons why governments should not end rape when it entails or
> risks a bigger evil.
The investment is not just to end rape. It is also to build
a model democracy, so that we can replicate it in other
Arab Muslim countries. We will have a template. We
are proving that there is not something genetic about
Arab Muslims that prevents them from living in a
democracy.
> > Most people expect them to do something to help the poor. The
> > oppressed deserve much greater attention.
>
> Is you pocket as deep as your mind is high (as in high-minded, not stoned)?
I pay my taxes, and with my personal money I have
funded the Iraqi and Afghan bloggers, and I have
donated US$4000 to the Afghan blogger so that he
could buy pencils to be handed out by US soldiers
to Afghan kids, to help create a favourable
impression of the US (and Australia).
> There were people in this world who needed help far more desperately than
> the Iraqi people,
I disagree. Human rights are the most important thing.
And we can make a REAL and LASTING difference
there, by changing the institutions. Instead of pouring
water into sand in Africa.
> and Saddam was by no means the worse dictator. Can we
There are not many dictators that rape their own
population.
> afford to right all the wrongs in the world, when Iraq alone is depleting
> our treasury?
Iraq is a once-off case. It is necessary to stick around
to do nation-building in order to have a model Arab
Muslim democracy. With the remaining countries, you
only need to defeat the fielded forces, install new
reforming rulers, reuse the old military, then leave.
It takes 3 weeks and 100 allied lives per country. Piece
of cake.
You just need to try to topple them one at a time, by finding
some pretext that only applies to that one single country,
so that you don't start a multifront war.
You also need to avoid the Europeans creating a hostile
alliance by kicking the US out of NATO. In order to do
that you need to explain to them what you are doing.
Specifically you are FIGHTING SUBJUGATION. The
Europeans are non-subjugators, so their head is not on
the chopping block. They just don't understand the
concept of being an anti-subjugator instead of a
non-subjugator.
> Although there is an element of altruism in our foreign aid, it is mainly a
> political tool to exert international influence.
No, it is mainly altruism.
> So even when we help
> people our country's interests are kept clearly in mind.
You are basically anti-American.
> What interests does the Iraq war serve?
Lots. The free world just got bigger.
> Surely not the interests of the country. Saddam
> surely didn't attack us.
Saddam attacked anti-subjugators. You should join the
tribe of anti-subjugators instead of being in the tribe of
Americans.
> They surely didn't have an Al-Qaida connection;
> they have now.
Yes, that is unfortunate for them.
> If I was Iraqi I would say to America to stuff their help.
Then you would be in a minority of Iraqis. It's not possible
to please everyone. We should instead seek to please our
allies, the anti-subjugators. Do you really want to leave
these people in chains?
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
> Removing Saddam has unleashed hell and fury that was being nicely contained,
> Saddam's atrocities notwithstanding. It was a grave miscalculation about
> which W was forewarned by his father's friends. Our only luck is that
> Saddam is still alive and available to straighten things out in Iraq again,
> since we obviously cannot.
You can't keep people enslaved because the former masters
threaten terrorist attacks. You should never give in to
terrorism. And whatever you want Saddam to do, you can
get Maliki to do.
BFN. Paul.
Michael Gray
<kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote:
- Refer:
<450f7d53$0$4674$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
At least on the latter assertion we have partial agreement.
Michael Gray
<kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote:
- Refer:
<450f7e5c$0$4673$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:rdtug21hugdt58n1u...@4ax.com...
>> >> Religion is, in my opinion, the main cause for misery, inequity,
>> >> violence, war and fear in the world.
>> >
>> >Not the religion that most westerns subscribe to
>> >today.
>>
>> Do you mean the one that uses the Old Testament as it's guide to
>> morality?
>> Are you joking?
>
>Modern Christians don't use the Old Testament as a
>guide to morality. They support the humanism of
>their liberal democracies.
Then they are not Christians.
>> The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
>> hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
>> genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
>> Are you mad?
>
>Liberating 27 million people from state-slavery that included
>institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do. That is
>covered by "fight subjugation" which I gave in another message.
>This is exactly the religion that is required. "empathy for
>strangers" so that you care about the screams of Iraqi women
>as they were being raped by their own government, combined
>with "fight subjugation" so that you would actually do something
>to free them.
You confuse and conflate "religion" with unrelated moral attitudes to
the point where it has no meaning whatsoever.
Stop doing this and refer to humanism as exactly that.
Not "religion".
>This should replace all existing religions. Or "humanism"
>should be expanded to include a directive to fight subjugation
>(free slaves).
Great looking Straw Man you have there.
>BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >> The statistics show that religious belief inflames these innate
> >> characteristics that you term as 'undesirable'.
> >> Your assertion does not stand up to analysis, I'm afraid.
> >> Atheists are the single biggest donors of financial weldare aid, and
> >> the least represented (by far), of any prison populations.
> >
> >Atheists are usually secular humanists. This is the
> >religion/ideology that needs to be promoted.
>
> At least on the latter assertion we have partial agreement.
But secular humanism needs to be updated with
the latest understanding.
I am AGAINST racism.
I am AGAINST sexism.
I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
I am AGAINST dogma.
I am AGAINST subjugation.
I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie different race, different sex, different religion) using
their OWN HARD-EARNED MONEY.
I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >> Are we going to do as a good job as we have in Iraq? We'll be bled to
> >> death
> >> financially and have the whole world against us.
> >
> > The war is affordable.
>
> How can you know that? I live in D.C. and know first hand what the cost of
> the war is doing to other branches of government.
Because that is what I have read. That in comparison
to other wars, this one is dirt cheap.
> Can you say Katrina?
What about it?
> > You
> > shouldn't hero-worship founders who didn't even know
> > that slavery was wrong. We have a more modern
> > understanding now, and that includes the universality
> > of rape being wrong.
>
> That's a strawman. George Washington never said that rape is not wrong.
I was talking about not knowing slavery was wrong.
Regardless, sex with slaves is statutory rape.
> And cut your modern man air of superiority. The century just past was the
> bloodiest in history, far more than when people condoned slavery.
That is due to various dogmas. Once again, we have
modern knowledge to FIGHT DOGMA.
> A couple of words for morally superior men like you to steal, beg, or borrow
> some humility: Rwanda, Sudan.
Again, FIGHT RACISM and FIGHT SUBJUGATION.
I have already documented the solution to the world's
problems. Read www.moatazilla.org
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> > The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to the
> > effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to
> > improve the world by the example we set.
>
> Great wisdom.
>
> That's right. Make them envy us, and copy us, and let them DO it. The
> blueprint is free.
They can't copy you when their necks are being held
down by a dictator's jackboot.
> Our politics have undone the love our culture have nurture for decades.
> People hate us now.
Only idiots hate you. The idiots need to be dealt with.
They need to be shown up for the fact that they
supported institutionalized rape in Iraq. The plight of
Iraqi women never even entered their head. The
Europeans supported yet another holocaust.
> Many thank god, non-Muslims especially, can tell
> between the American people and the American government, and hope some day
> soon they will act in better accord.
America is a democracy. A majority of the American
people supported liberating Iraq.
> > By the way, you keep raising the topic of "rape". Could you tell us the
> > specifics of how much of this was actually going on and who was doing it?
> > Is it true? Is it something that was particular to that government, or
> > was/is it something cultural? Or was it largely rumor that was hyped as
> > propaganda.
>
> Rape was sensationalized. Even with a woody 24x7 Saddam's monster sons and
> their henchment could not violate enough women for it to be a calamity
> comparable to the carnage that has been going since we "liberated" the
> place.
No, the calamity was that 27 million people were slaves
that didn't even have the right to not be raped.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >Modern Christians don't use the Old Testament as a
> >guide to morality. They support the humanism of
> >their liberal democracies.
>
> Then they are not Christians.
:-) The definition of "Christian" is very loose.
You're basically saying that the only people who
should use the moniker "Christian" are those who
take the entire bible literally and act on it. In that
case, there are NO Christians left in the world.
There's no-one out there stoning their children
to death because they are disobedient.
> >> The one that invades sovereign nations because it's leader get
> >> hallucinations between drinks that YHWH has instructed him to commit
> >> genocide, and to lie outright about the reasons?
> >> Are you mad?
> >
> >Liberating 27 million people from state-slavery that included
> >institutionalized rape is exactly the right thing to do. That is
> >covered by "fight subjugation" which I gave in another message.
> >This is exactly the religion that is required. "empathy for
> >strangers" so that you care about the screams of Iraqi women
> >as they were being raped by their own government, combined
> >with "fight subjugation" so that you would actually do something
> >to free them.
>
> You confuse and conflate "religion" with unrelated moral attitudes to
> the point where it has no meaning whatsoever.
>
> Stop doing this and refer to humanism as exactly that.
> Not "religion".
From www.dictionary.com:
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
I don't know why you exclude a derivation of humanism
from being a religion.
BFN. Paul.
Michael Gray
<kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote:
- Refer:
<451100c9$0$4672$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
Good.
I admire those wishes, when expressed in actions.
We seem to be on the same "wavelength" here.
Question:
Does your "religious discrimination" include discrimination against
those that have yet to acquire any religious infection?
It may not have escaped your notice that every one of your fine listed
traits are in EXACT opposition to displayed Christian practices.
Michael Gray
<kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote:
- Refer:
<45110522$0$4672$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
I don't exclude "a derivation of humanism" from being a religion.
I exclude "humanism" from being a religion.
If I am correct in assuming by implication that your definition of a
religion includes "practices generally agreed upon by a number of
persons", then you have stretched the word to beyond the breaking
point of usefulness (as well as grossly perverting its usual sense).
By that utterly futile and ultimately puerile definition, being
right-handed is a 'religion'.
And please don't turn this into an even more pointless argument ad
dictionarium, now that you have begun to make some sense.
Paul Edwards
> >> >Atheists are usually secular humanists. This is the
> >> >religion/ideology that needs to be promoted.
> >>
> >> At least on the latter assertion we have partial agreement.
> >
> >But secular humanism needs to be updated with
> >the latest understanding.
> >
> >I am AGAINST racism.
> >I am AGAINST sexism.
> >I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
> >I am AGAINST dogma.
> >I am AGAINST subjugation.
> >I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie different race, different sex, different religion) using
> >their OWN HARD-EARNED MONEY.
> >I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN.
>
>
> I admire those wishes, when expressed in actions.
> We seem to be on the same "wavelength" here.
Great! That's actually my life's work as an atheist,
trying to figure out what my religion was.
> Question:
> Does your "religious discrimination" include discrimination against
> those that have yet to acquire any religious infection?
Yes, atheists are very valuable members of society, and
we should have deep respect for them.
> It may not have escaped your notice that every one of your fine listed
> traits are in EXACT opposition to displayed Christian practices.
I disagree with that. Most Christians pray for all the
people of the world, regardless of race/religion/sex/nationality.
And they make charitable donations to everyone too.
And they don't subjugate others (although unfortunately
in Australia church leaders have lost their will to actually
FIGHT subjugation).
Basically my religion is the same as current US foreign
policy, and Bush is a Christian. He's not exporting
Christianity to the Middle East, he's exporting my
religion. He just hasn't got the words to describe it.
BFN. Paul.
Paul Edwards
> >> You confuse and conflate "religion" with unrelated moral attitudes to
> >> the point where it has no meaning whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Stop doing this and refer to humanism as exactly that.
> >> Not "religion".
> >
> >From www.dictionary.com:
> >a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
> >
> >I don't know why you exclude a derivation of humanism
> >from being a religion.
>
> I exclude "humanism" from being a religion.
You might be right there. I think "humanism" is too
vague to be called a religion. I have a specific
derivation of humanism which I am promoting as
a religion. A specific set of rules. Given to you
in the other message. It is the rules that make me
different from people in the Middle East.
BFN. Paul.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5363130.stm
I cannot really explain why....but I felt a very deep sense of loss and
disbelief when hearing of the cruelly ironic demise of "Crock-Hunter" Steve
Irwin.
I was on holiday at the time in 'St' Ives [Gr. Britain] up in my room, and
felt immediately stunned and shocked.
What a guy...whether he was a man of Christian beliefs I know not, but he
was a man one could just not dislike, his childish effervescent approach and
enthusiasion in everything he did, his amazing confidence and courage in
handling highly venomous snakes and other wild animals was truly
astonishing.
Even so, I thought one day young man, when a little older and your reactions
are not so sharp, you are bound to get it......but I never dreamed he would
be stabbed in the heart by a normally docile fish.
He obviously had no time to react or get away as such a thing would be an
almost instantaneous reaction to the fish feeling threatened in some way.
Such a terrible and innocuous way to end such a short life.
I watched the memorial service on 'Animal Discovery' channel last night
which I just happened to tune into after coming off the Internet.
I could not keep dry eyes as the procession of people who had known him
spoke of their memories of him and some of the wonderful conservation works
he had been involved in.
But it shows nature has no sympathy or compassion regarding humans, no
matter how they try and interrelate with them, although we know this state
of affairs will be bought to an end once Christ returns and sets up the
kingdom of God on earth.
Isaiah 11:6 "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling
together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth
shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."
Amen!
Thus Men and wild animals and the fish of the sea, will then be completely
at peace with each another, as the curse of sin is taken away from the
earth.
Jeff...
J Antero
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:AJ5Qg.6162$4C1.354@trnddc03...
>> > The founders didn't agree with you. I think Washington said words to
>> > the
>> > effect that we should stay out other countries' problems, and try to
>> > improve the world by the example we set.
>>
>> Great wisdom.
>>
>> That's right. Make them envy us, and copy us, and let them DO it. The
>> blueprint is free.
>
> They can't copy you when their necks are being held
> down by a dictator's jackboot.
>
>> Our politics have undone the love our culture have nurture for decades.
>> People hate us now.
>
> Only idiots hate you. The idiots need to be dealt with.
> They need to be shown up for the fact that they
> supported institutionalized rape in Iraq. The plight of
> Iraqi women never even entered their head. The
> Europeans supported yet another holocaust.
You are very dogmatic, in your new anti-dogma religion.
You are also very free in your use of military force, in your new
anti-subjugation religion.
jvf
Sound of Trumpet ha escrito:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1695644/posts
>
> the quiestion isn't if religion makes people better o not, nor what kind of religion makes people better . In the same way , do the politic, the philosophy, the art o science make people better, or what policy , what philosofy or what art. Does the art of Musolini or Stalin make people better ?
>
> Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?
>
> front page ^ | 05 September 2006 | Dennis Prager
>
>
> Posted on 09/05/2006 4:11:24 AM PDT by unionblue83
>
>
>
> I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest
> vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral
> (you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24
> columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest
> system of values ever devised.
>
> However, this advocacy of religion comes with two caveats.
>
> First, the claimed superiority of Judeo-Christian values in no way
> means that all believing Jews and Christians are good people, let alone
> better than all other people. There have always been and there are
> today morally superior individuals in every religion. And there are
> morally superior individuals among atheists and people of no organized
> religion.
>
> Second, there is no religion that has not made, or at least enabled,
> some of its adherents to be morally worse than they would have been had
> they not adopted that religion.
>
> So our question is not whether there are good or bad people in every
> religion. The question is whether any given religion is likely to make
> one who believes in it a better or worse person than he would have been
> had he not believed in that religion.
>
> Let's begin with my religion, Judaism. I recall a young man who
> attended a Jewish institute I used to direct. When he first arrived at
> the institute, he was a particularly kind and nonjudgmental individual
> -- and completely secular. After his month-long immersion in studying
> and living Judaism, he decided to become a fully practicing Jew. When I
> met him a year later he was actually less kind and was aggressively
> judgmental of the religiosity of fellow Jews, including me and others
> who had brought him to Judaism. In one year he had become in his eyes
> holier than the teachers who brought him to religion in the first
> place.
>
> Now, of course, there are teachings in Judaism that, if honored (such
> as the Prophet Micah's admonition to "walk humbly with your God"),
> would have prevented him from becoming sanctimonious. But the
> religion's emphasis on legal observance enabled him to count the number
> of laws fellow Jews did not observe and judge them accordingly.
>
> One major benefit of Judaism's being law-based is that it can provide
> an individual with a way to regularly ascertain right from wrong, to
> provide ethical rules on a daily basis. It can move him to visit the
> sick when he would rather be at home watching television, to resist
> gossiping, to give more charity than he otherwise would, to show honor
> to parents who may not deserve it, and so much more. But it can also
> lead him to judge fellow Jews by their level of ritual observance, to
> substitute law worship for God worship, and can lead a Jew to retreat
> from almost any social interaction with the non-Jewish world.
>
> Within Christianity, faith in Jesus Christ can lead one to live a life
> of extraordinary loving kindness and self-sacrifice in order to emulate
> Jesus, whom the Christian regards as his Lord and Savior. It can also,
> and has, led Christians to place so much emphasis on proper faith as to
> neglect equal emphasis on proper behavior, to hunt down heretics, to
> judge other people by their faith rather than by their decency (as in
> Europe's wars and killing over theology). It can lead to an almost
> unique support for the Jewish people -- as among American evangelical
> and other conservative Christians -- and it has also led to the most
> prolonged hatred of the Jews for spurning and killing Christ among
> Christians in Europe.
>
> Nearly 2,000 years of Christian domination of Europe did not prevent
> most Europeans from doing nothing to protest, let alone rescue Jews
> from, the Nazi genocide. On the other hand, the relative handful of
> European Jews who were saved were rescued disproportionately by
> religious Christians. I once asked California State University
> Professor Samuel Oliner -- an authority on altruism and on rescuers of
> Jews during the Holocaust, and himself a Jew who was rescued by
> non-Jews -- knowing all he does now, on whose door would he knock if he
> wanted to be saved from the Nazis during the Holocaust -- a doctor, a
> professor, a lawyer or a priest. He answered that there was no question
> that it would have been the priest.
>
> The third monotheistic faith is Islam. There are many millions of
> decent and kind Muslims in the world. But there are also at least a
> hundred million Muslims (i.e., 10 percent) who support killing
> innocents in the name of Allah and Islam. And there are more than that
> who believe in the ideal of using force to spread Islam throughout the
> world.
>
> So the question is this: How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and
> decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of
> Islam?
>
> I do not claim to have an answer. I only claim that the question is a
> legitimate one that all the decent Muslims need to answer. The evil
> ones repeatedly tell us how Islam is the source of their support for
> murder and torture. We need to know from the good ones how Islam has
> made them good.
>
> So far we have only heard from one side.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in
> Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness
> is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is
> www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the
> Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.